Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill,

Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday, 28th April.

Oxford Corporation Bill (by Order),

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).

Address for Return,
showing (a) Particulars of all Aliens to whom Certificates of Naturalisation have been issued and whose Oaths of Allegiance have during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1924, been registered at the Home Office; (b) Information as to any Aliens who have during the same period obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature; and (c) Particulars of cases in which Certificates of Naturalisation have been revoked within the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 92, of Session 1924)."—[Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO.

Colonel DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to restore amicable relations with Mexico at an early date?

Mr. PONSONBY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are taking any steps for the settlement of questions out standing between Great Britain and Mexico with a view to the resumption at an early date of normal diplomatic and trade relations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — BULGARIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether we have received recently, or since authorising the increase in the Bulgarian police forces, any reports or despatches from our representative in Sofia dealing with internal political conditions in Bulgaria; and, if so, whether he will publish them for the information of Members?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Minister at Sofia, in the discharge of his normal duties, naturally keeps me regularly informed of the political situation in Bulgaria. No useful purpose would be served by the publication of these Papers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under similar circumstances in the case of Hungary his predecessor, Lord Curzon, did allow publication of the papers dealing with the White Terror in that country, and if I can produce evidence of similar affairs in Bulgaria to-day, will he reconsider his attitude towards the publication of papers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A good many assumptions are contained in the right hon. Gentleman's question. If he likes to put another question on the Paper dealing with further matter, I will, of course, give him an answer, but I must have these reports from our representatives in foreign countries, and if I am to be expected to lay them all, I shall be deprived of the very information which it is desirable that I should receive.

Mr. MACKINDER: In view of the very great importance of these matters, and in view of the fact that the expressed wish of certain hon. Members is to get
this information, should not the Members of the House of Commons be entitled to receive this information?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am, of course, anxious to give the House any information which they desire, and which I think is compatible with the public interest, but if every confidential report which is sent to me is to be claimed as a matter of right by the House of Commons, the only result will be that the Foreign Secretary will cease to receive confidential reports.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of that difficulty, would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to ask our representative in Sofia for a special report on this question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to define more particularly, by communication to me, the question on which he wants information. He has spoken vaguely of a White Terror somewhere else and of what my predecessor did, but if he will say what exactly he wants in the present circumstances, I will consider if there is any information that I can give him.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he consented to the enrolment by the Bulgarian Government of some of their armed forces for a provisional term, as distinct from the 12 years' basis laid down in the Treaty of Neuilly; if so, how many men were enrolled; were His Majesty's Government informed as to the object of the enrolment; and did he make any representations as to the use of these men for the suppression of the Agrarian and Communist parties?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The request of the Bulgarian Government was referred by the Organ of Liquidation in Bulgaria to the Allied Military Commission at Versailles, who have recommended its acceptance to the Ambassadors' Conference. The decision of the Conference has not yet been announced. The number to be enrolled is 3,600 men for a short period. As regards the last two parts of the question, the Bulgarian Government informed the Organ of Liquidation that their reason for the request was apprehen-
sion of internal disorder, and undertook to use these troops solely for preventive purposes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask when these military representatives in Paris recommended this increase in the force of Bulgaria, and whether His Majesty's Government will withhold their assent to the augmentation until they have a definite report of what is going on in Bulgaria at the present time?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot, without notice, say the date exactly when the recommendation was made, but I think it was within the last fortnight. I am content to leave the matter in the hands of the Ambassadors' Conference.

Mr. MACKINDER: Would it be possible to get to know whether there is any connection between this question and the report of the Ambassadors as stated in the reply to Question No. 3?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSULAR SERVICE (PROMOTION).

Mr. DIXEY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the Consular Service, particularly amongst the senior men, as to the limitation of promotion: and will he consider the opening up of certain diplomatic posts to some of these men?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would not be possible to introduce promotion from the Consular Service into the Diplomatic Service as a regular practice without inflicting grave hardship on Members of the Diplomatic Service in which promotion is already slow. It must also be remembered that the functions of the two Services are in many respects quite dissimilar. I would, however, point out that there are at present four Ministers who are ex-members of the Consular Service, and another has quite recently retired.

Oral Answers to Questions — OUTBREAK OF GREAT WAR (DOCUMENTS).

Mr. PONSONBY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statement recently published by M. Ljuba Jovanovitch, President of the Serbian Parliament, with regard to the complicity
of the Serbian Government in the murder of the Austrian Archduke at Serajevo in 1914, will be published as a supplement to Cmd. 7860, the collected diplomatic documents relating to the outbreak of war?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. Command Paper 7860, as its title shows, is a collection of official diplomatic documents contemporaneous with the outbreak of war in 1914, whereas the statement referred to by the hon. Member is contained in a volume of personal reminiscences published 10 years after the events to which they relate, and of very doubtful historical value. In any case, the statement has no bearing on the question of responsibility for the War, which depends not upon the authorship of the assassination but on the manner in which Austria and Germany used the crime to provoke war.

Mr. PONSONBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no doubt about the authenticity of the statement in question, and is it not as well that this Blue Book, to which I refer in my question, should be corrected and made as accurate as possible?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not questioning the authorship, which is what I understand the hon. Gentleman to refer to when he speaks of the authenticity. I question the historical value of the statement, and in any case it is not relevant to the Blue Book which was published.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But is M. Paschitch, who was in power in 1914 and is now in power, making any communications to the representatives of foreign countries on this exposure by one of his subordinates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should be very much surprised if he did.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Mr. PONSONBY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to publish papers with regard to affairs in Egypt covering the period since His Majesty's present Government assumed office?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. Publication at this stage would add but little to the knowledge already possessed
by the House, and I am advised by others—and I myself have reluctantly come to the conclusion—that it would not be in the public interest. In these circumstances I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not press his request.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

DISARMAMENT (GERMANY).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report of the Inter-Allied Military Committee on the compliance or otherwise of Germany with the disarmament Clauses of the Peace Treaty has been completed; whether it has been submitted to the Allied Governments; whether it is to be published; and what action it is proposed to take upon it?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Marshal Foch's Committee has reported; and what is the nature of the Report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative. Until the Report of the Military Committee of Versailles has reached the Allied Governments it is obviously not possible to say what action will be taken upon it.

Captain BENN: Has this Committee of Marshal Foch any authority, or are the Allies entitled to form their own judgment independent of any report made by the Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee presided over by Marshal Foch undoubtedly has authority, by reason of the members of whom it is composed, but their authority does not extend to imposing their opinions upon the Governments concerned.

COLOGNE (EVACUATION).

Captain BENN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the evacuation of Cologne is being postponed on account of the negotiations concerning the Five Power Pact?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the continued delay in publishing the reasons for the
non-evacuation of Cologne lends considerable colour to the suggestion that the two questions are interlocked?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware. I think that, on the whole, matters are proceeding satisfactorily. With patience and good will on all sides, we may yet arrive at a solution of all our troubles.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Rumanian Government has yet ratified the Protocol of Innsbruck of June, 1923, acknowledging liability for their proportion of the debts of those portions of the territories of the late Austro-Hungarian monarchy now in the possession of Rumania?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.

Sir HENRY COWAN: Have the Governments of the other States which have acquired territory at the expense of the late Hungarian Empire acknowledged this liability?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe the other States have ratified, but I really ought to have notice of any question of that kind.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make inquiries as to the reason for non-ratification, and. further, will he intimate or make it clear that any further applications for loans will in the meantime be discouraged in this country or, at any rate, not encouraged?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The issuing of intimations about issues on the London money market is not my business, but the London money market is a shrewd judge of credit and of what justifies credit.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: That is not an answer to the first part of my question. Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make inquiries as to the reason for the non-ratification?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the reason for non-ratification is that the Rumanian Government are not satisfied with the share which is attributed to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

PEKIN-MUBDEN RAILWAY.

Mr. LOOKER: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the section of the Pekin-Mukden Railway which was seized by Chang Tso Lin in 1922 is still retained by him; that £1,150,000 of the British issue of the loan of 1898, which is a first charge upon the security of the permanent way, rolling stock, and entire property of the railway, with its freight and earnings, is still outstanding; that the surplus earnings of the railway are hypothecated as security for British loans and their services to the extent of about £2,000,000; and that the cash earnings of the railways were $318,000 in October last as compared with $1,480,000 in October, 1923, and $143,000 in November last as compared with $1,470,000 in November, 1923; and if His Majesty's Government will make such representations as will put an end to the wrongful retention of such 250 miles of the line, its equipment and revenue, which constitutes a serious breach of the railway agreement and impairs the security upon which British capital has been furnished not only for this but for other Chinese lines?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the general position. Representations have been and continue to be made both at Pekin and at Mukden to secure the return of the section of the Pekin-Mukden Railway seized by Chang Tso Lin to the control of the railway company.

Mr. LOOKER: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the article in the "Times" yesterday, from its Pekin correspondent, particularly relating to the position of the railways there at present, and does he not think that the time has arrived for him to consult with the other Powers interested, with a view to taking definite steps to settle the position in China, and is he not further aware—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make a speech. Supplementary questions ought to be very brief.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I read the article with much interest. I have been in communication with the other Powers
concerned, and if I saw an opportunity of advantageously taking any steps, I should do so.

RUSSIAN RAILWAY OFFICIALS (IMPRISONMENT).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the general interests of the foreign community in China, he will cause representations to be made to the Chinese Government to speed up the trial or procure the release of the Russian railway officials, Ostroumoff and Gondatti, who, on the taking over of the Chinese Eastern Railway by a joint board of Soviet and Chinese officials on the 3rd October, 1924, were thrown into prison at Harbin, and have since been detained there in spite of the general amnesty proclaimed by the Chinese Government by decree on the 1st January last?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am asking for a report upon this case, before deciding whether action is possible or desirable in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

GENEVA PROTOCOL.

Colonel DAY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the State of Czechoslovakia has ratified its signature of the Geneva Protocol; if so, on what date; and if he will have inquiries made to ascertain whether or no any country other than Czechslovakia has ratified its representative signature to the Protocol?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was announced at a meeting of the Council that the President of the Czechoslovak Republic had ratified the Protocol on the 28th October last, but the ratification has not, I am informed, been deposited at Geneva or, consequently, become effective. No notice of ratification by any other country has been received. Since notice would be sent out without delay by the Secretary-General of the League, I do not think any special inquiry would be useful.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary said in this House last week that no ratification had been made by any of the Governments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If he did so, he did so with my authority, and in so far as I was inaccurate I tender my apologies to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House. The document has been ratified by Czechoslovakia, but the ratification has not been deposited, and it has not yet, therefore, become effective.

MOSUL FRONTIER.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Council of the League of Nations is expected to take its decision regarding the Mosul frontier; whether the British representative at the thirteenth session of the League of Nations Council gave a definite undertaking that the British Government would abide by the Council's decision; if so, whether His Majesty's Government considers itself still bound by that pledge; and whether a similar undertaking was given by the Turkish representative?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As was stated in a reply to a question on the 25th March, the President of the Commission appointed by the Council of the League of Nations to investigate the Iraq frontier question hopes to be able to present his Report to the Council at the June session. I cannot forecast when the decision thereon will be finally taken. The answers to the three remaining parts of the question are in the affirmative.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the amount of £2,350 as the estimated expenses for 1925–26 for travelling and incidentals in connection with the Annual Conference of the. Inter national Labour Organisation; if he will state the number of delegates and technical advisers who attend this conference and for what length of time; and whether he will consider the advisability of curtailing this expense?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir A. Steel-Maitland): Under the Versailles Treaty the Government is bound to send two Government delegates, one employers' delegate and one workers' delegate, who may each be accompanied by advisers, up to a maximum of eight. In the interests of economy, I am trying to secure that this number shall not exceed six. The conference to begin on
19th May next will probably not last more than three weeks. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that every possible effort will be made to curtail expenses consistently with the adequate representation of British interests at the conference.

Captain BENN: Could not one of the delegates be a woman?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is another question on that subject.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May we take it that it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to do anything to weaken the only organisation that the working classes have got out of the Versailles Treaty?

Colonel WOODCOCK: Instead of weakening the organisation, I asked that the expenses should be reduced, and may I put it that many of us think—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Mr. HAYDAY: To what extent would the reduction from eight to six advisers bring about an economy?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think—I have been asked the question and I answer offhand—to the extent of about one sixth.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 46.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet appointed the representatives of this country to attend the International Labour Organisation at its Annual Conference at Geneva; and, if so, can he give the names of such representatives?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: These representatives have not yet been appointed.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Will the Minister endeavour to see that these representatives do not spend £100 each a week in expenses in connection with this matter?

Captain BENN: In view of the fact that the inquiry is to be into trades in which women are closely interested, would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that one of the representatives shall be a woman?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will certainly consider that point, but the
principal object, which I am quite sure would be the desire of all, is to send out as representatives those who are most suitable.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Seeing that this country has only one vote out of 50 upon this international organisation, why is it necessary to send out a large number of representatives?

Sir A. STEEL - MAITLAND: The number of representatives is four, and they may have certain experts with them. That is a provision, if I remember aright, of the Treaty of Versailles, and I do not think we can be a party to breaking the Treaty.

Sir H. CRAIK: But is it not the case that we have only one vote out of 50 in that organisation, although we are contributing one-tenth of the money?

Colonel WOODCOCK: 68.
asked the Minister of Labour the names of the States who are members of the International Labour Organisation; the proportion of the expenses borne by each State; whether any of these States have been at any time in arrears of their payments; and, if so, which States have not contributed regularly?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that in the short time available it has not been possible to collect the information desired. I am, however, considering what information it will be possible to give on the various points raised, and I will forward a statement to my hon. and gallant friend as soon as possible.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the names of the members of the organisation were read to the Committee only a few days ago, and that, while we have only one vote in 50, we pay one-tenth of the expenses?

Colonel WOODCOCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman also ascertain if the States who do not pay any contribution are allowed to attend the discussions and vote at the Conference at Geneva?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The last supplementary question, if I may say so, does not really arise out of the question put. As regards the first supplementary question, it is perfectly true that some information is already available, and I have been trying to get the whole of the
information together. As regards our having only one vote in 50, while we pay a much larger proportion of the expenses, that is perfectly true. It attaches similarly to our membership of the League of Nations, but I have not yet heard that anyone has been disposed to question it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every one of these States pays its delegates £100 a week for expenses?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DESTROYERS (ARTIFICERS' MESSES).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the structural alterations now being carried out in His Majesty's destroyers are making the chief and engine-room artificers' messes uninhabitable; whether he will consider the advisability of providing, as soon as possible, other suitable messes for the men concerned in these destroyers; and whether, until such proper accommodation is provided, payment of hard-lying allowances will be made in compensation for the discomforts incurred while the work is being carried out?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I am afraid that a certain amount of temporary discomfort is inevitable in all classes of ships when structural alterations are being carried out, but I can assure the hon. Member that everything possible is done to ease the position as far as possible.

Mr. YOUNG: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a spare cabin, or perhaps more than one?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I will certainly look into that.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which concerns hard-lying allowances?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am afraid that would be impossible.

OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that the House of Commons has
voted the money for the grant of marriage allowance for naval officers, he will state when it is proposed to commence the expenditure of it?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Pending settlement of the conditions under which marriage allowance, if any, is to be paid, I regret I am unable to make any statement.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Gentleman now say it is absolutely certain that these allowances will be paid?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No, Sir.

FOREIGN SERVICE.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that it was the intention that H.M.S. "Curlew" should return home in April for recommissioning, and that-there are other ships on the North American and West Indies Stations capable of navigating the River Plata., he can state the reason why H.M.S. "Curlew" has had her period of foreign service extended, thus causing great discontent to the personnel, who have been disappointed in their prospect of seeing their families, and giving rise in many cases to serious inconvenience to their relatives, who have made arrangements to receive them; and whether it is still possible to revise the arrangements?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that His Majesty's Ship "Curlew" was originally clue to return home in April. It must be remembered that there is only a limited number of ships on the North America and West Indies Station suitable for this service, and the Admiralty are bound to consider the most economical method of carrying it out. For this reason, it was decided that the vessel detailed for the duty should be one due to return to England in the normal course, i.e., His Majesty's Ship "Curlew." Although this will mean that the ship's return will be deferred beyond the date originally contemplated, she will be back in England well within the maximum period of absence, namely, three years. I have no reason to think that this arrangement, which was made only after all the considerations had been taken into account, will lead to any discontent among the personnel on board, and I hope that the fact that the "Curlew" has been selected
for this important service, will go some way in mitigation of any inconvenience which may be caused to relatives of the crew by the inevitable extension of her period of commission.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that it was decided by the Admiralty that the length of commission for foreign service was to be two years in all, and that it is now apparently the practice to keep men away for three years, he can state when this Order was promulgated and the reason why the shorter period no longer obtains?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The normal length of commissions of His Majesty's ships on foreign stations was increased, in April, 1922, to a period of not less than 2½ years, exclusive of the time spent by the crews on passage or waiting for suitable opportunity for passage with a maximum time away from home ports of three years. The object of this change was to effect economy in the case of carrying out foreign reliefs, and to reduce the number of men duplicated by "crossing reliefs." I may add that in unhealthy climates the period of commission of ships is less than the normal.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman consider reverting to the old practice, in view of the feeling amongst married men and their wives?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The practice was instituted after very careful consideration.

Mr. B. SMITH: Is it not a fact also that when the two years came in as against the four, that arose after careful consideration?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, and I think the latest must hold the field.

NAVAL RESERVE (STOKERS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if, having regard to the amount of unemployment amongst stokers of the Royal Naval Reserve, he can see his way to extend the period of three months' grace in which to obtain employment now granted to Royal Naval Reserve stokers who are unemployed when they apply for re-enrolment, or will he
extend the exemption from the employment condition granted to men of three years' sea service during the War to men of a lesser period of war service?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The Admiralty are anxious to do what is possible without detriment to the efficiency of the Reserve, and the matter is being investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT.

Mr. HARRIS: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the summoning of a new Disarmament Conference by the President of the United States and as to the willingness of the French and other Governments to participate in such a Conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part therefore does not arise. I may add that I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), in answer to a similar question on the 18th February, that I would communicate with him as soon as I could usefully make a statement on the subject.

Captain BENN: Will the Government delay any action on the report of the Naval Construction Committee until these proposals have become more specific?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not a question for me.

Mr. HARRIS: The question I asked was whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any information. Am I to understand the subject has never been mooted to His Majesty's Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer I gave appears to me to be an answer to the question the hon. Gentleman put. It was, "The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative."

Mr. FENBY: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider preparing a reasoned statement of British naval needs that could be put forward as a basis for the limitation of naval armaments?

Mr. DAVIDSON: His Majesty's Government would gladly co-operate
with the other principal naval Powers in the further restriction of naval armaments, and have already given much attention to the subject, but the publication of such a statement as the hon. Member suggests would not conduce to this end, or be in the public interest.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I ask whether it is not the fact that this country has decreased its naval armaments to a far larger extent than any other country in the world that can be regarded as a naval Power?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I think all the information is covered in the Return.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that in any further conferences of the kind, British naval power will not be reduced disproportionately to that of other Powers?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I think that question must be left over. It is hypothetical.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSO-JAPANESE TREATY.

Captain BOURNE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Treaty signed on 21st January, 1925, at Pekin between the representatives of the Imperial Government of Japan and those of the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics has yet been ratified by either and, if so, which of the contracting Governments; and, if ratified, whether the text of this Treaty has been communicated to the League of Nations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Ratifications were exchanged on the 26th February, and the Treaty becomes operative from that date. As far as I know, the Treaty has not yet been communicated to the League of Nations, but as the text of the Treaty has only recently reached this country, it is still early to expect its communication to the League.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (DEBTS TO BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the unpaid debts owing to British investors by various States forming the
United States of America are for loans which were made for war purposes or for industrial enterprises; whether any representation has been made by Great Britain to the United States in connection with these debts; and whether it is the intention of the United States to place against the money due to them from this country the total amount of the British-held debt owing by various States of America, with interest to date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The debts referred to were contracted for industrial purposes. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) on the 1st April. As regards the third part, the debts in question are not obligations of the United States of America but of individual States of the Union, and the Government of the United States of America is not responsible for them.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I ask whether it is not the case that the American people are not fully acquainted with the position regarding these debts, and is it not desirable that they should be fully acquainted with the question of the repayment of the American debt by Great Britain?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is as capable as I am of reaching the American public through the ordinary channels of the Press, and if he thinks it would be useful to do so, he will do so.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would not representation from the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain to the American people bring it before them, and let them see that it is a scandalous state of affairs that the American States should owe our people so much and not be paying it?

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY.

Captain BENN: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information as to the creation of a Ministry of Defence in Italy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider reducing the cost of the British passport to 5s., thereby making the whole-time period 10s., instead of 12s. 6d. as it is to-day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question of the 17th December last.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSCAUCASIA.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any appointment has yet been made to fill the presidency of the Central Executive Committee of the Transcaucasian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic; and, if so, what is the name of the president so appointed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No appointment has yet been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

PUBLIC UTILITY WORKS.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the present Government has considered the advisability of affording financial assistance to railway companies undertaking large works of public utlity, such as the Grimsby fish dock extension; and, if so, with what result?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The position is that railway companies are eligible for assistance under the Trade Facilities Acts, but not for grants from the Unemployment Grants Committee. It would not be possible, therefore, for a grant to be made from the Unemployment Grants Committee in respect of the Grimsby fish dock extension.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Does that answer mean that railway companies owning docks and harbours will not be able to participate in the grants for such schemes as outlined in Circular U.G.C. 16, Special?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think in my reply I have answered that point in regard to railway companies.

IRON AND STEEL TRADES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour what further schemes
the Government are prepared to put in hand in order to cope with the increasing numbers of unemployed workers in the heavy iron and steel industries throughout, the country?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Government are prepared to give assistance towards the cost of approved schemes of public utility put into operation by local authorities in the districts concerned. In addition, as stated in the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member on the 31st March, preference is given by the Unemployment Grants Committee to proposals by any local authorities for schemes calculated to promote employment in depressed industries.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the future, the immediate condition, of the iron and steel trade is viewed with the greatest apprehension by those closely concerned, and will he take some other steps to those he has enumerated to satisfy himself on these points during the Recess?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am quite aware of the state of affairs, but I think I am right in this: that on the North East Coast things are just a little better according to the last Returns. I am not, however, quite sure how far that affects iron and steel, as distinct from other trades in the North Eastern district.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman satisfy himself that there has not been a serious decrease of employment during the last two weeks?

Sir H. CROFT: In view of the appalling facts by the hon. Member could he not protect his constituents from the terrible foreign competition to which we are being subjected at the present time?

BRICKLAYERS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of bricklayers employed in 1913 and the number employed at the present time; the output of bricks in this country in 1913; and the rate of annual output at the present time?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of bricklayers engaged in the building trade in Great Britain who were insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts was 68,924 at December,
1913, and 60,690 at July, 1922. Similar information relating to bricklayers engaged in other industries is not available, but according to the Census of population the total number of bricklayers in 1911 was 99,549, and in 1921 87,574. The comparability of these two figures may, however, be affected to some extent by changes in classification, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that reliable figures are not available for pre-war production of bricks, but that it was estimated that the average production for the three years prior to the war was 2,805 millions per annum. It is estimated that at the present time the output is at the rate of about 5,000 millions per annum.

WOMEN (HOME-TRAINING COURSES).

Mr. HANNON: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the total cost to the Government for each year since its inception of the home-training courses for unemployed women promoted through the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment with Government assistance; whether any figures are available, as to the percentage of women taking these courses who have subsequently entered domestic service; and whether he will consider the desirability of stipulating that women admitted for training in these courses shall not, on completion of their training, register at Employment Exchanges for clerical and other employment in which the instruction given in such courses is useless?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply is long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HANNON: Is the Department of the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to prevent girls trained for domestic service going to the Employment Exchanges and registering for other kinds of labour, clerical and the like?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is a supplementary question that can really only be elucidated in Debate, but if I were to put it, quite briefly, it would be this: Every encouragement is given to trained girls to enter domestic service, but if they are not fitted for domestic employment at the end of the training, manifestly it would be absurd to prevent them going into any other work.

Following is the statement promised:

The State contributions towards the cost of the home training courses for unemployed women carried on by the Central Committee on Women's Training have been as follow:


£


1921–2
…
…
…
50,000


1922–3
…
…
…
15,000


1923–4
…
…
…
43,150


For the financial year just ended the contribution is estimated at £127,400. In addition, the State bears the cost of staff loaned to the Committee, which last year amounted to about £1,000, and provides accommodation, stationery and other establishment items free of expense. These items cannot, however, be apportioned with any degree of accuracy between the various schemes. The percentage of women who have taken a course and have, subsequently entered domestic service varies in different areas. In 1922 and 1923 the percentage known to have entered domestic service was about 66 per cent. of the women trained. In 1924 the percentage is rather less; during the spring and summer the courses were not limited to women likely to enter domestic service.

I will consider the point raised in the last part of the question, but I am afraid it would be difficult to make the stipulation the hon. Member suggests.

ATTERCLIFFE (VACANCIES).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that on Thursday the 26th February a notice was posted outside the Attercliffe Employment- Exchange intimating that labourers (ex-service men only) were required; that two men, named Rooke and Darby, applied, and they were told by one of the clerks to come the following day at 2.30; that they attended the following day at 2 o'clock, and were sent to Messrs. Burrows, South Yorkshire Ironworks, which is not more than five minutes' walk from the Exchange, only to find that the vacancies had been filled; that on both occasions they saw the same clerk; and, seeing that he made out their cards and that the cards of the men who filled the vacancies should have been returned to the Exchange, can an explanation be given as to how it came about that such unnecessary irritation
should be caused to applicants at the Exchange in their efforts to obtain employment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Exchange had made inquiries and had been unable to ascertain whether the vacancies had, in fact, been filled at the time when Rooke and Darby were sent. As the hon. Member himself points out, the works are only five minutes' walk from the Exchange, and I do not think it was any serious hardship on the men in having to go and see for themselves whether the jobs were still open.

MINERS (AUCKLAND GUARDIANS).

Mr. LAWSON: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Bishop Auckland Board of Guardians have protested against the conditions governing unemployment benefit which came into operation on 19th February; that the guardians assert that large numbers of miners could not possibly comply with these conditions; that an additional burden of £300 per week will be laid upon the union; and that this view is endorsed by boards of guardians generally in the county of Durham; and whether, in the light of this evidence, he is prepared to withdraw the condition that no unemployment benefit will be paid to persons who have not paid the required number of contributions?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Bishop Auckland Board of Guardians and other Poor Law authorities have protested against the conditions of waiver of the first statutory condition for unemployment benefit, but for the reasons explained in the Debate of 9th March, I am afraid I cannot relax the requirement referred to.

Mr. LAWSON: What is the point of this circular? Is it to make men seek work? It is absolutely impossible in this particular area, because of the unemployment there?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The whole question really has been fully debated. I cannot, in answer to a supplementary question, cover ground that took up the whole Debate a few weeks ago.

WEDNESBURY EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.

Mr. SHORT: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that young
unemployed girls have recently been sent by the Wednesbury Employment Exchange to Messrs. Kynochs, Limited, Birmingham, where no vacancies have existed; and will he take steps to prevent such incidents recurring?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Wednesbury Exchange, having recently supplied women workers in response to an order notified by Messrs. Kynochs, learnt that, after cancellation of the vacancies, workers who applied personally to the firm were being engaged. The Wednesbury Exchange accordingly took the course of suggesting to several unemployed women on its register that there might also be an opportunity for them to obtain employment in the same way. It would have been more strictly in accordance with instructions if the Exchange had first verified that vacancies actually existed, but as its action was dictated by a desire to give its women applicants every possible opportunity for obtaining work, I am not disposed to take serious exception to it.

Mr. T. SHAW: Are there no telephones between Wednesbury and Birmingham, and is it necessary for girls to go from the first to the second place when a telephone call could give the information?

Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether in this case any blame whatever attaches to Kynochs?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is no question of Kynochs in this matter. The point really was this: that the Exchange in question was telephoned to in the ordinary way to supply some girls to fill vacancies. They did so. After these vacancies were closed they had an application at the Exchange for another girl, and secured no appointment for her. Some women subsequently came back to Wednesbury who had made personal application for themselves, and had found work at Kynochs, and as a result the manager, thinking to do simply a friendly act to one or two of the girls, informed them: "It seems there are still jobs going if you go and look for them." Strictly speaking, that was irregular. But, in the light of all the circumstances, I do not think it was either a wrong or unfriendly act.

Mr. SHORT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these girls had to pay
their own railway fare between Wednesbury and Birmingham, which is 11d. each way; does he propose to refund that money to these girls?

Mr. LANSBURY: Would the girls have been struck off the unemployment pay roll if they had refused to go?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is a purely hypothetical question. In this case should have said, "Certainly not," because it was not submitted in the regular official way.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I. should like to ask the Minister if he is not aware of this point: That the Exchanges tell the girls at night that there will be a job for them next day at such a place. They go home buoyed up by the hope that they are going to get a good start. It is a tragedy when they go next day and find that there is no job. I should like the Minister to be very careful what he is doing.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think this question has had a fair share of attention.

HON. MEMBERS: What about the railway fares?

Mr. SHORT: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed boys, girls, and women, respectively, on the live registers of the Wednesbury Employment Exchange?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On 30th March there were on the registers of the Wednesbury Employment Exchange 43 boys, 38 girls and 265 women.

TIPTON EXCHANGE.

Mr. SHORT: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the dilapidated nature of the building which houses the Tipton Employment Exchange; and will he consider the desirability of housing the Exchange in more suitable premises?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware of the unsatisfactory condition of these premises. New premises have been taken which, it is anticipated, will be ready for occupation in a few weeks' time.

CATERING AND AMUSEMENT TRADES (OVERTIME).

Mr. GROVES: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to
the prevailing practice of some employers, especially in the catering and amusement trades, to employ on evening work persons who are fully employed in the day; and whether, in view of the present abnormal degree of unemployment, he will legislate for the cessation of such practice?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I presume the hon. Member refers to the fact that some persons work as waiters or in orchestras in the evening, notwithstanding that they are employed in those or other callings during the day. I do not see my way to introduce legislation prohibiting this practice.

EXCHANGE STAFFS.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the average number of trade unionists upon the staff of the Employment Exchanges administering the unemployment insurance funds throughout the country; and what percentage these numbers form of the total numbers on the staff?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: All persons employed at Employment Exchanges are civil servants, permanent or temporary, as the case may be. Perhaps my hon. Friend has in mind the arrangement under which standard benefit or extended benefit granted by an employment committee may be paid through a trade union or other association in cases in which the trade union or association itself also pays unemployment benefit.

PAINTERS, WELLINGBOROUGH.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a man, describing himself as a painter, was recently fined at Welling-borough for being drunk and disorderly; that he stated that he was out of work, but received unemployment benefit of 33s. a week in addition to a benefit of 19s.; whether there is any lack of work for painters in this district; and, if there is work, why this man continues to receive unemployment benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The case referred to is apparently that of a disabled ex-service man who was recently charged with being drunk and disorderly, and was bound over as it was a first offence. He has a good record of employment, but has recently been on benefit,
in respect of contributions, for a considerable time. There appears to be no reason to suppose that he was not properly qualified. Opportunities of work for painters have not been very good owing to seasonal conditions, but the man has been submitted by the local Employment Exchange to three vacancies during the period of his claim to benefit, and has since obtained work by his own efforts.

LASCARS.

Mr. B. SMITH: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any order has been made bringing Lascars and other coloured Members of the Empire serving in the mercantile marine into the class of non-domiciled seamen under Section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, who are ineligible for the receipt of unemployment benefit?

Sir A. STEEL - MAITLAND: The Unemployment Insurance (Mercantile Marine) Special Order, 1921, made under Section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, exclude from Unemployment Insurance (save as regards payment of the employers' share of the contribution) seamen who are neither domiciled nor have a place or residence in this country. This Order is general in its provisions but principally affects Lascars. The employers' contribution in such cases are paid into a special fund for the provision of pensions for seamen.

REGISTER (REMOVAL OF NAMES).

Mr. HAYDAY: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the classification of the reasons for the removal of names from the unemployment register adopted by his Department; and the number of names removed from the register under each head for the years ending December, 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Names are not removed from the Employment Exchange registers for any reason except failure of the person concerned to maintain registration, and the only class of case in which the Exchange necessarily knows the reason for failure to maintain registration is where a person is placed in employment by the Exchange. I am afraid therefore I am unable to give tin figures which the hon. Member appears to desire.

Mr. HAYDAY: In answer to two previous questions, the right hon. Gentleman stated that to give such a classification would involve searching through the various reasons for the removal of names, and he could not, therefore, do it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman now whether there is any grounds for the removal from the register other than that special ground, and, if not, will some provision be made for a record being kept.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will certainly consider that suggestion, and if there is sufficient reason to warrant the extra trouble and changes that have to be made, perhaps the hon. Member will confer with the Parliamentary Secretary or myself afterwards. All that one wishes is to have as useful a record as possible commensurate with the trouble and expense involved.

CENTRAL UNEMPLOYMENT BODY.

Mr. HARRIS: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour when the London Central Unemployment Committee last met; how many times did it meet during 1924; what are its functions; what funds has it got at its disposal; how much did it spend in 1924; and for how many men during that year did it find work?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. As the reply to this question is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HARRIS: Am I to understand that this Committee has met more than once a year? Is that not a very simple question?

Sir K. WOOD: That is only part of the question, but I will answer it. The last meeting of the central body was held on the 12th December, 1924. It held no other meeting that year.
Following is the reply:
It is assumed that this question relates to the Central (Unemployed) Body for London, established under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905. The Central Body last met on the 12th December, 1924. It held no other meeting during that year, but standing and other committees of the body met on 21 occasions. The functions of the body are laid down
by the Act of 1905, but in so far as the provision of work for the unemployed is concerned those functions have necessarily been in abeyance since the policy was adopted of making direct grants, towards the cost of the provision of work, to local authorities, and not through the central body. The body is at present chiefly concerned with the management of the Hollesley Bay Farm Colony. The body may receive funds from voluntary contributions and may also levy a. rate upon the City of London and the metropolitan borough councils. In the past nine years only two rates have been so levied, of one-twenty-fourth and one-thirty-second respectively of a penny in the £. The body also receives considerable sums from the sales of farm and garden produce grown at the colony. In the year 1924 the body expended just under £40,000, of which nearly £25,000 represents sales of produce, and the balance was derived mainly from payments made by boards of guardians for the maintenance and training of men at the colony. During the year, work was found at the colony for 947 men.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. HANNON: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of unemployed men who have been precluded from drawing unemployment benefit owing to the decision of local committees that they are normally unemployable; and whether there are any ex-service men in this category?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of applications for extended benefit which have been recommended for rejection by local employment committees in Great Britain from 1st August, 1924, to 9th March, 19'25, on the ground that insurable employment is not likely to be available is 10,520. I regret that I am unable to state how many of these rejections were in respect of applications by ex-service men.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMISSIONERS OF WORKS, AND WOODS AND FORESTS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of amalgamating under one Department, in the interests of
economy, the duties of the Commissioners of Works and those of the Commissioner of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): It is not considered that any economy could be attained by the amalgamation, which would involve a reversal of the policy adopted in 1852 of keeping the administration of the Land Revenues distinct from the duties discharged by the Commissioners of Works.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Have not some of the duties of the Commissioner of Woods and Land Revenues been transferred to the Office of Works, and would it not conduce to economy if the duties of managing Crown properties in London, such as Regent Street, were transferred to the Office of Works?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so. With regard to the first part of the question, I should like notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAINFUL OCCUPATIONS (STATISTICS).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 47.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in Great Britain over the age of 16 engaged in occupation for gain in 1921 and 1924, respectively, giving the number of men and women separately; and the number of persons in Great Britain engaged in occupation for gain over the age of 63 in the years 1921 and 1924, respectively, giving the numbers of men and women separately?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The total number of persons, aged 16 and upwards, returned as engaged in gainful occupations in Great Britain at the population census of 1921 was 18,386,093, of whom 13,079,578 were males and 5,306,515 were females. The census reports do not show the numbers occupied of ages 63 years and upwards, but the total number of occupied persons aged 65 years and upwards was 798,555, of whom 650,358 were males and 148,197 were females. No statistics are available for any date since 1921.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS.

BOOT-AND-SHOE TRADE (APPRENTICES).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 48.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is pro-
posing to vary the conditions laid down by the boot-and-shoe repairing Trade Board for the indentures of apprentices; if so, will he state what are the changes proposed; and what would be their effect, if adopted, on the large number of apprentices' indentures under the existing agreement?

Sir A. STEEL -MAITLAND: The boot-and-shoe repairing Trade Board have submitted to me for confirmation certain changes in the rates of wages and conditions of employment of apprentices, and these are now under consideration by the Department. The confirming Order, when made, will give full details, and I will send a copy to my hon. Friend. The proposed changes do not affect existing indentures.

Mr. ALEXANDER: May I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that the changes with regard to indentures were not proposed by the Trade Board, but sent direct to him by the employers?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should have to make quite sure, to be able to give an accurate answer.

GROCERY AND PROVISIONS.

Mr. ALEXANDER: 49.
also asked the Minister of Labour, in view of his letter, dated 23rd March, 1925, to the Grocery and Provisions Trade Board (England and Wales), in which he expressed the view that it is not certain that conditions as to wages and hours in the trade a-re such as to make the operation of statutory conditions advisable, and that he is therefore delaying the fixing of rates, whether he contemplates dissolving the Board; and whether, in view of the evidence given before the Cave Committee, showing the necessity for statutory conditions in this trade, he proposes to hold a public inquiry before taking any further action in the direction indicated?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As stated in the reply on 25th March to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, I have instituted an inquiry into the conditions in this trade in order to satisfy myself whether the operation of statutory conditions is advisable. The action to be taken with regard to the future of the Board will depend on the results of the inquiry.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the inquiry going to be of a public nature, with evidence taken from all over the country, or are there going to be merely itinerant visits by inspectors?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It will be a careful inquiry on the part of the Department. It is not a public inquiry, but if the hon. Member can send. or cause to be sent, any information that is material, we shall be exceedingly glad to have it, because the position of the Board has been unsatisfactory in every way, and things have dragged on for four years, and the reason that I have taken this action is to clear things up one way or the other, so as to try to get a proper condition of affairs.

Mr. ALEXANDER: But did not the Cave Committee suggest in their Report that before a Board is set up there should be a public inquiry, and is it not equally sound to say that before a Board is closed down there should be a public inquiry?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the result were to show that there was no sweating in the trade, so that it was desirable to close it down—I speak subject to correction on a point like this, because one does not wish to speak too positively without consultation with the authorities—I think it would require legislation in order to put an end to it. Consequently, there would be every opportunity for seeing that an end was not put to it without proper reason for taking that course.

Sir J. NALL: In view of their recent experiences, will co-operative societies be asked to assist in this matter?

MILK DISTRIBUTIVE TRADE (WAGES).

Sir FRANK MEYER: 50.
asked the Ministry of Labour whether he is aware that the scale of wages laid down in the Order of the Ministry of Labour of 23rd March, 1923, for the milk distributive trade has had the effect in seaside resorts, where the trade is largely seasonal, such as Great Yarmouth, of compelling employers in the milk trade to discharge employés of over 21 years and to engage youths in their place, who in turn are discharged when they reach the age of 21; and whether he will be prepared, in order to prevent unemployment and dis-
tress among the men, to consider the revision of the rates of wages laid down in the Order or, alternatively, to classify seaside resorts where trade is proved to be largely seasonal as coming under area A, although the population may exceed 10,000?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In accordance with the Trade Boards Acts the minimum rates in question are fixed by the Milk Distributive Trade Board (England and Wales) which is a body composed of equal numbers of representatives of employers and workers in the trade together with three independent persons of standing. It has not been brought to my notice that the rates have the effect suggested by my hon. Friend, and I shall be glad if he will furnish me with particulars of any cases of which he has knowledge in order that they may be put before the Board.

Mr. MARCH: Is it not also a fact that the employers and employés agreed upon this as well as upon the rate of wages?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Surely that is covered by my answer. I have no knowledge upon the question of wages, and if my hon. Friend will send me the information of which he speaks, I shall be glad to bring it to the notice of the Board.

Mr. B. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the Minutes of the Board where he can get all the necessary information he requires?

COMPLAINT FORMS.

Colonel DAY: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Trade Boards Advisory Council supply on request a complaint form indicating the information required by the inspectorate when cases are reported; and, if so, whether he will take action to advertise where the forms can be obtained in the 65 trades union journals that are published monthly or at more frequent intervals?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A form has been prepared to be used by persons wishing to make complaints under the Trade Boards Acts and copies have been supplied on request to the Trade Boards Advisory Council of the Trade Union Congress and to certain trade unions interested. Copies can be obtained from the headquarters of my Department and
from the local offices of the Trade Boards Inspectorate. With regard to the last part of the question, if any trade union journal wishes for a copy of the form, I shall be willing to supply it.

GROCERY TRADE.

Mr. TAYLOR: 65.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any trade board other than the Grocery Trade Board (England and Wales) has been suspended or abolished; and, if so, for what reasons?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. TAYLOR: 66.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the reason why the Grocery Trade Board (England and Wales), established over five years ago, is not functioning; whether the employers concerned have submitted any evidence to show that the need for the trade board does not exist; and whether he is aware that the chairman of the workers' side has resigned from the board as a protest against the treatment meted out to the board by him?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: With regard to the first two parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) on the 25th March, of which I am sending him a copy. With regard to the last part of the question, I regret to say that Mr. Turner has tendered his resignation from the workers' side of the hoard, as a protest against the decision to make an inquiry into the conditions actually prevailing in the trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Mr. TAYLOR: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of disabled ex-service men who have received limited benefit since the 1st November, 1924, because they were prevented from seeking whole-time employment by reason of their disablement?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am afraid I do not understand what is intended by the question of the hon. Member. Perhaps he will confer with me afterwards.

KING'S ROLL.

Mr. HANNON: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of firms and local authorities, respectively, on the King's Roll, and the number of appeals which have been issued to local authorities on this matter; whether he can give any estimate as to the number of ex-service men thus employed; and whether he can state the number of ex-service men at present seeking employment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There are approximately 28,000 employers, including 1,373 local authorities, on the King's National Roll. Some eight appeals have been made by Ministers and by the King's Roll National Council to local authorities to enrol. These appeals are, of course, in addition to those made by King's Roll Committees throughout the country.
The Roll relates to the employment of disabled ex-service men, of whom approximately 360,000 are employed by firms on the Roll. The latest statistics available indicate that there are 38,286 disabled ex-service men registered as unemployed.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the propriety of publishing the list of those municipal authorities who are not on the King's Roll?

Captain WATERHOUSE: Would the right hon. Gentleman circulate to Members of this House who represent constituencies where there are errant municipalities a copy of that answer in order that they may forward it to their local authorities?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If any hon. Member wishes to have a- copy of the answer I will gladly send him one, or he can use his own copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that purpose. As regards the steps to be taken, including that of publishing, I have been considering as carefully as I can what further action can be taken. I think there are many objections to making out a black list, but, apart from that, there are other steps which are more desirable in order to bring the desirability of joining the King's Roll to the notice of the authorities who have not already done so.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 70.
asked the Minister of Labour how many firms engaged on Government contracts are not yet on the King's Roll?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I informed the hon. Member on the 25th March, I am obtaining the information from Government Contracting Departments. The inquiries will take some little time to complete, as the number of Departments concerned is large, but I will send the information to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIEN MUSICIANS (PERFORMANCE PERMITS).

Major KINDERSLEY: 60.
asked the Minister of Labour on what date permits were granted to two American bands, named Vincent Lopez, with a band of 17, and Ted Lewis, with a band of eight, to perform at the Capitol Theatre in the Kit Cat Club; to whom the permits were issued; whether the person to whom they were issued was the actual employer; if not, who was; whether any conditions were attached to the permit by the Ministry of Labour as to the dismissal or suspension of British musicians then employed at the said theatre; and whether these conditions have been, in fact, observed?

Sir A. STEEL - MAITLAND: Permits for the bands have not actually been issued, but arrangements have been made to issue them, on certain conditions, to Foster's Agency, Limited, acting on behalf of the employers, the Capitol Theatre and the Haymarket Kit Cat Club. The two bands are not both to be in this country at the same time, and among the conditions imposed is a stipulation that the entry of the Vincent Lopez Band does not result in the suspension or dismissal of the British bands employed on the 10th March, that the number of British musicians employed is not decreased or their salaries adversely affected, and that an additional British band, of not less than 10 performers, is engaged to play concurrently with the Vincent Lopez Band, this band being retained to play also with the Ted Lewis Band, which will enter after the Lopez Band has left. As the permits have not been issued, the question of the observance of the conditions does not yet arise.

Major KINDERSLEY: Is the Minister aware that on the 9th March 12 members of the existing band were given notice and have since been discharged?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, I think it is quite true that the existing band was reduced about the time mentioned by the hon. Member, but I am inclined to think that he is under a misapprehension in thinking that the new band was brought in to take the place of the band to which he refers. I rather think the band to which he refers played in the orchestra and the new band is to take a turn upon the stage.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Musicians' Union used to be consulted by previous Governments before these permits were issued, whereas now these bands are allowed to enter and the Musicians' Union is notified afterwards?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think notice ought to be given of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOURS OF LABOUR (WASHINGTON CONVENTION).

Marquess of HARTINGTON: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any negotiations have taken place with regard to the simultaneous ratification of the Washington Hours Convention by Great Britain, France and Germany; and, if not, whether the French and German Governments can be approached with reference to this question?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As regards the first part of the question, my predecessor met the Ministers of Labour of Belgium, France and Germany at Berne, on the 8th and 9th September, to discuss certain difficulties surrounding the ratification of the Washington Hours Convention. No further negotiations have taken place, and I do not think the present moment is opportune for action on the lines suggested by my Noble Friend.

Mr. THOMAS SHAW: Is it a fact that since that Conference took place the German Minister of Labour has recommended ratification of the Convention?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The last I heard was that the position had not
advanced much in Germany, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has information of more recent date than I have.

Mr. B. SMITH: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us the number of countries that have ratified the Treaty subject to its being ratified by this country?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At present I believe, speaking again on the spur of the moment, that the answer is one only. I think that Italy has so ratified, but, speaking from memory, I think that is the only one.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many countries expressed willingness to ratify this Convention if Great Britain also ratified it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will supply me with the facts he indicates, I shall be very glad to consider them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Has not the British representative the information?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

BUDGET STATEMENT.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the. Prime Minister what business he proposes to take during the week after we reassemble after the Easter holiday?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Tuesday, 28th April, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
On Wednesday, 29th April, until 8.15, and on Thursday, 30th April, general discussion of the Budget Resolutions.
I think it is the desire of the House that I should put down a Motion on Wednesday, 29th April, giving precedence to the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Harrison)—["To call attention to the present condition of the Fishing Industry; and to move, That this House views with grave concern the present state of the Fishing Industry of Great Britain, and that, in the interests of the Navy, the merchant service, and the food supply of this country, this industry should receive every possible assistance from the Government."]
Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the Clock; and that at Five of the Clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister.]

NOTICES OF MOTION.

STATE TRADING.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to State Trading, and move a Resolution.

WASTE AND UNDEVELOPED LAND.

Mr. WRIGHT: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the question of Waste and Undeveloped Land in this country, and move a Resolution.

APPRENTICESHIP.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the need of an organised system of apprenticeship, and move a Resolution.

NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE.

Mr. WALSH: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the necessity for a National Minimum Wage, and move a Resolution.

ROADSIDE PETROL PUMPS.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable highway authorities to permit the erection of petrol supply pumps on the edge of the roadway.
The object of this Bill is to give local authorities the power to license the erection of petrol pumps at the side of the roadway. It provides that, where the highway authority is not the local authority, the consent of the local authority shall be required, and the rights of owners of the soil over which the roadway runs are not to be affected; and also that any such pumps erected at the side of the roadway shall comply with Regulations which may be issued by the Home Office as regards safety. At the present moment a large number of
local authorities have sanctioned the erection of these pumps, some 2,000 in number, which, unless the powers sought for in this Bill are granted, are illegal. These are of great service to motor vehicles of all descriptions, both commercial and private. Those who have motored through crowded thoroughfares in some of our towns know that generally in the narrowest streets traffic is impeded by cars or lorries filling up from garages by means of petrol tins, and that this is not the most suitable or most efficient method of doing things. By means of a suitable petrol pump one gallon can be put into the tank of a car in under four seconds. Major Cooper-Key read a paper at the annual general meeting of the Incorporated Society of Inspectors of Weights and Measures in 1921. This is what he says:
Many garages have no facilities for the fitting of petrol pumps and the only method available is by means of two-gallon cans which takes much longer and is by no means as safe.
I would also call attention to a statement made by the National Protection Association of America after a very thorough investigation of the question last May when they reported:
A fixed pump at the kerb is the safest and most efficient means of supply.
At present water supply is available installed along the roadside to supply the requirements of steam lorries. Surely it is even more important that a supply of petrol should also be available. This Bill was objected to in 1923 because the Local Legislation Committee did not agree that local authorities should have the powers which many of them were seeking in Private Bills to grant licences to erect petrol pumps along to roadside. It is for this reason the Bill is now being brought forward to grant local authorities the powers they have so frequently asked for and leave is being sought to introduce it. Another objection made was the obstruction of the public highway. I suggest it is the Public Highway Authority which is really the authority that has the interest of the highways most at heart. Finally, in this connection, I should like to call attention to the remarks made by a Select Committee of the House of Lords in their Report on the Petroleum Bill, dated 12th July, 1923:
Power should be given by a general Act enabling local authorities to license at their
discretion roadside pumps of a typo approved by a central authority for supplying motor spirit to vehicles.
Under these circumstances I ask leave to introduce this Bill.

Mr. MARCH: I oppose the Motion. We hear quite enough lately of the slow-going traffic being a nuisance to motorists. We shall hear a lot more if we are going to have petrol pumps on the edge of the kerb for motorists to pull up and get filled up with spirit. They are not always contented with petrol spirit. Very often they want some other spirit, and that takes time to get, which all causes obstruction in the road. The object is as far as possible to relieve the congestion of roadways and also to give free access to vehicles of every kind. We are going to have this kind of thing put up alongside the kerb in the main road. If they were on the side roads they would probably be narrower still and more inconvenient to the other traffic. We are getting in most instances now facilities for motorists to draw inside various places and get their petrol in that way. There is a great venture being made in connection with that matter. It gives every facility for motorists to get inside, out of the way of ether traffic, and get their spirit, causing no inconvenience to other traffic. We heard

it asked by hon. Members a little while ago, when was the Minister of Transport going to take action to prevent horse-drawn vehicles being on the roads? If horse-drawn vehicles are not allowed to go along the road, are the roads always going to be reserved for motorists entirely? I know you would like it. Many of you people who have motors would like all the road to yourselves; I suggest that you all have tunnels to yourselves. That would be about the best thing that could happen, to get out of sight of everyone else bar yourselves. Apparently the idea is that those who have motor cars think they pay for all the upkeep of the roads and are entitled to all the road. No one is allowed to walk across in safety. Nothing else is allowed to be on the road in safety bar them. Therefore I think, even though they have that privilege of being on the road, we ought not to grant them another privilege by putting up petrol pumps alongside the kerb.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable highway authorities to permit the erection of petrol supply pumps on the edge of the roadway.

The House divided; Ayes, 130; Noes, 154.

Division No. 76.]
AYES.
[3.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Huntingfield, Lord


Alexander, E. E (Leyton)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Atkinson, C.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Balniel, Lord
Dixey, A. C.
Jacob, A. E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Kenyon, Barnet


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Bennett, A. J
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Berry, Sir George
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy, Lord
Lansbury, George


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lougher, L.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Brittain, Sir Harry
Frece, Sir Walter de
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ganzoni, Sir John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major A.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macquisten, F. A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Malone, Major P. B.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Clarry, Reginald George
Harris, Percy A.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Clayton, G. C.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Morris, R. H.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Connolly, M.
Haslam, Henry C.
Oakley, T.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hawke, John Anthony
Phillpson, Mabel


Cope, Major William
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Couper, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Radford, E. A.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raine, W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Homan, C. W. J.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Crook, C. W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Steel, Major S. S.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Savery, S. S.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Skelton, A. N.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Taylor, R. A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.



Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Warrender, Sir Victor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Snell, Harry
Watts, Dr. T.
Sir Philip Dawson and Mr. Campbell.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wells, S. R.



Sprot, Sir Alexander
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hammersley, S. S.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Albery, Irving James
Hardie, George D.
Remnant, Sir James


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Robinson, W. C. (Elland)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barr, J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sitch, Charles H.


Briggs, J. Harold
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Christie, J. A.
Lamb, J. Q.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Clowes, S.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Looker, Herbert William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Warne, G. H.


Dalton, Hugh
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Margesson, Capt. D.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Welsh, J. C.


Dennison, R.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Drewe, C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Whiteley, W.


Dunnico, H.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Murnin, H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Forrest, W.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gee, Captain R.
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gillett, George M.
Nuttall, Ellis
Womersley, W. J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Grundy, T. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. March and Mr. Wignall.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Section eighteen of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919.
I can explain in a few sentences the purpose of this short Bill. It is a Bill to assist allotment holders, and it is supported by Members of all parties and does not, I think, introduce any contro-
versial issue of any kind. Under the Scottish Act of 1919, there was a sum of £4,000 a year made available for the provision of allotments. The Secretary for Scotland is advised by his legal advisers that the words "assist the provision of allotments" do not cover assisting the purchase of land or the rent charges of the allotments, and this Bill simply makes it perfectly clear that the words do mean what many people, though
not all, thought that they probable that a that the sum can be made Ministers to wards the purchase of the land or the rent charges of the land. It is supported by all those interested in allotments in both countries, and it also has the support of the Edinburgh City Council. I am not sure about the Glasgow City Council, but I think it has their support. In these circumstances, I hope that the Bill will have an easy passage through the House.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. MacIntyre, Mr. Couper, Dr. Shiels, Mr. William Graham, Mr. Rosalyn Mitchell, Mr. Murnin, Mr. Livingstone, and Sir Godfrey Collins.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to amend Section eighteen of The Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 28th April, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) PENALTIES BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to penalties for illegal fishing by trawl vessels," presented by Mr. MACKENZIE LIVINGSTONE; supported by Captain Wedgwood Benn, Sir Godfrey Collins, Sir Robert Hamilton, Sir Murdoch MacDonald, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Runciman, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, and Major Crawfurd; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 28th May, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Westminster City Council (General Powers) Bill,

Slough Trading Company Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Southampton Corporation Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

and who have 18G ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Sheffield Corporation [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Royal Exchange Assurance Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to require returns.)

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out the word "thereon" and to insert instead thereof the words "on the land."
This is a purely drafting Amendment. It will be observed that the Clause, as it stands, might be read as enabling the Minister to require the return of livestock on grazing or fallow land only. That is not the intention of the Bill, and those who are interested can see that the Amendment, which immediately follows and completes the small drafting change that I propose, will make the whole Clause read as it is designed to read, and I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 17, leave out the words "on the land," and insert instead thereof the word "thereon."—[Mr. E. Wood.]

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I beg to move, in page 2, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words "includes land used," and to insert instead thereof the words
means land which is or has at any time been capable of being used as arable or.
This Amendment is moved in no spirit of hostility to the Bill. On the contrary, I think Members in all parts of the House and people engaged in every part of the industry of agriculture have paid tribute to the importance of the objects which this Bill is designed to achieve. These agricultural statistics are now collected in nearly every country in the world, and there is an international institute which exists for the collection of these statistics from the various countries of the world, their collation, and their comparison, and the importance of them, of course, is that they enable the food productive capacity of the countries to be accurately ascertained. Surely, there never was a time when it was so important as it is at
the present juncture to take stock of our agricultural resources. We have 1,200,000 men and women out of work at the present time, or 130,000 more than were out of work this time last year, and there is no immediate prospect, as was proved in the Debate in which prominent Members of all parties took part about a week ago, of such a revival of foreign trade as will enable a large proportion of these men and women to be absorbed in the manufacturing trades.
What contribution can rural Britain make towards the solution of this problem? What contribution is it making? At present, it is making no contribution at all. On the contrary, men are flowing from rural Britain into the towns and big cities, increasing the glut in the labour market in those towns and cities, and aggravating, instead of contributing to the solution of, the problem of unemployment. It is due mainly to the fact that, instead of more land coming into cultivation at the present time, the whole tendency is for land to go out of cultivation. Yet, as a matter of fact, while all this is going on, we are importing, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) pointed out in the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, £350,000,000 worth of those kinds of food which we could grow in this country. How much of that we could grow I do not know. Many hon. Members say—in fact, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Wright) the other day said—that we could grow the whole of it. Perhaps that is an overestimate.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Hear, hear!

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member says, "Hear, hear," but he does not know, and it is in order to ascertain the full extent of our agricultural resources, and, therefore, to improve this Bill, that I am venturing to submit this Amendment to the House. Take the case of Scotland. If you take the acreage of arable land in Scotland, the acreage of pasture land, and the acreage of rough hill grazing land and add them together and subtract that figure from the total acreage of Scotland, you will find that there is a gap of about four million acres, representing 25 per cent. of the whole of the land of Scotland, which is unaccounted for in these
agricultural returns. Some hon. Members above the Gangway say that the whole of that 25 per cent.—perhaps not the whole, but by far the greater proportion, 80 or 90 per cent.—is being wantonly wasted for sport. Hon. Members on the other side of the House would say that that is an absurd and an absolutely exaggerated statement, and that hardly any of it is really available for productive purposes. I do not want to exaggerate; I want to get at the facts, and I submit that every honest controversialist on this question, and everybody who wants to help the country at the present time, and believes that agriculture could make a contribution towards the solution of the unemployment problem, must want to get at the facts, and ought, therefore, to support the Amendment which I am venturing to move.
In the United States of America they have the best agricultural statistics of any country in the world. The Assistant-Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Thompson) made a very interesting speech to the Statistical Society of this country in January, in which he ponted out that in America they get from the farmers returns of all the unimproved as well as the improved value of the land. It is with that object that I am moving this Amendment. I do not aspire to win from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill recognition for my Amendment as a masterpiece of Parliamentary drafting. I only claim for it that it is an honest and sincere effort to obtain information which he himself in the Committee upstairs declared that it was his desire to obtain. The Minister possesses resources of technical and legal advice which are not at the disposal of a private Member, and if he has any form of words which he proposes and which are different from the form which I have brought forward, I should be delighted to accept them. If he would give us an undertaking that he would institute a survey of land in this country, I would accept that and withdraw my Amendment on that assurance.
If we can have a survey of the whole of the land of this country, showing not only the land that is now under cultivation, but the land that is at present out of cultivation, it would be of
inestimable value as a stocktaking of our whole agricultural resources. Because I believe that agriculture can make a substantial contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem, because I believe that on these lines we can stem the tide of emigration, which is draining the best blood from our rural districts at the present time, and because food production is now neglected, and is, perhaps, the most urgent aspect of our national economy at the present time, I consider it necessary and urgent to take full stock of our whole agricultural resources, actual and potential.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment, and I hope we shall have the sympathy and support of the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Agriculture. I do not know whether I am of too optimistic a nature, but I entertain that hope in view of the speech which he made in commending the Second Reading of the Bill to the House. He emphasised, quite properly, the desirability of securing statistics of the character provided for in the Bill, by reason of their general interest to all who are concerned in the agricultural life of the country. But he did not confine his support of the Bill to that object. He said that he wanted statistics which would be of practical value in connection with the framing of a general agricultural policy. I am sure that he has the support of Members from all quarters of the House in seeking information and statistics which will enable him, or a successor in office, to frame what is sadly needed at the present time, a general comprehensive policy for dealing with the industry of agriculture.
Since that is his object. I cannot conceive that he can have any objection to incorporating in the Bill this Amendment, because the value of the returns will be greatly enhanced if he obtains the information which is sought for in the Amendment respecting land which is capable of being used as arable land or which has been capable in the past of being used for that purpose. I imagine that any general agricultural policy will cover a very wide variety of subjects, and there is no doubt that one of the most important subjects which must figure in any agricultural policy is the one covered by the Amendment. The
Mover of the Amendment has reminded the House of the very great amount of produce which we import into this country from abroad, and he has stated that a proportion of that, without specifying how much, because we do not know, is capable of being produced at home. It is obvious that that is one of the main subjects which any Minister of Agriculture must take into account in framing a general agricultural policy.
It is from that point of view that it seems to me the statistics which we suggest the Minister should ask for will be of value to him in enabling him to deal with one of the most vital elements in the agricultural policy, an element with which he cannot hope to deal successfully unless he is in possession of the knowledge which we suggest by this Amendment he should ask for. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion upon this, that the definition of agricultural land in this Bill is unnecessarily limited in scope. The amount of land which is being used for arable purposes and the amount of land which could be used for those purposes are obviously statistics which we ought to know before we can hope successfully to frame a policy governing the industry.
Apart from their value from that point of view, there is a further consideration, which was mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, and that is that it is obvious, with the state of the country as it is at the present time, that one of the primary considerations of any Government should be to make a thorough and exhaustive examination into our own resources at home. It is as a step in that direction, apart from the other considerations which I have mentioned, that it seems to me that this Amendment is valuable. It cannot be said that it is going to add very much to the difficulties of drawing up the return. I imagine that a good many farmers object to making this return at all, but seeing that they are to be called upon in this Bill to make returns of the character prescribed, to add this further one will be a very little addition to the difficulties with which they will be confronted. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment, which will give us information of a very valuable character. The Minister of Agriculture, if he accepts
the Amendment, will be ensuring the receipt of statistics which will be of great interest and of great practical value both now and in the future.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I hope that everybody will agree with the object which the hon. and gallant Member has in view in moving this Amendment. I hope the Minister of Agriculture does. I am in agree aunt with the aim of the Amendment, for the reason that I think there is nothing more serious in the whole agricultural field, and perhaps in the general field of public activity, than the need of stimulating good cultivation. This Amendment aims at that, and I only wish that it were an effective way of getting at that problem. The best authorities hold that at least 20 per cent. of agricultural land in England is not farmed as it should be. There is not only the matter of unfarmed land, but there is also another question which we ought to get at, and that is the amount of land unfarmed because it is in parks. Parks are returned as grazing land, whereas a very large number of parks—one is familiar with many in Scotland—lie upon land which is first-class arable land, and adjacent to some of the best arable land in the country, very highly rented. We do not even know me area of parks in this country, but we may judge of their extent by the fact that I remember during the War, when I was interested in the question of fresh water fish supply, a figure was ascertained that we have 60,000 acres of ornamental waters on land in parks in this country. That indicates that the figure is a very formidable one.
What we do need, and this is the occasion to urge it upon the Minister, is a genuine survey. I have urged upon the Minister the importance of using any powers that he has already in that direction, and if they are not adequate that he should get further powers for a survey. The Ministry has not the right to enter upon land. It does require legislation to get an adequate survey such as my hon. and gallant Friend has in view in moving the Amendment. Unfortunately, the machinery of this Bill does not provide the means. That is why when the Labour Government was in office we introduced this Bill as it is now. We had not a majority in this House for any
drastic Measures. This Bill is the same Bill as was introduced last year in the House of Lords. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will be the first to realise that we have not had the experience now for four years of the working which would have followed on the continuance of the Agriculture Act, if it had been decided to leave that Act on the Statute Book. We had there great powers of stimulating good farming and squeezing out the slack farmer. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the urgent need, in view of the national difficulties in regard to employment, of a survey; but I am afraid this is not the occasion. We must urge that he will introduce a Bill for the purpose.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would urge the Government to give consideration to the idea which underlies this Amendment. It is not for me to express an opinion as to whether it quite carries out the whole of the intentions of my hon. and gallant Friend. The Government, with the help of their advisers, can certainly frame something which will enable them to get the information. I agree with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken that it is vital that we should get a survey of the agricultural possibilities of this country. I cannot conceive a more important matter for the Government, at the beginning of their life, than that they should get full information upon that subject.
I have seen this Bill referred to in the Press as though it were an insignificant Departmental Bill. I do not know of more important Bill that the Government have introduced up to the present moment. It is a Bill which is capable of being of extraordinary value in the solution of out industrial difficulties. We want accurate information as to whether it is possible to make better use of the land of this country. There are many people who say, many people who understand the land problem, I mean practical farmers, that we could double the produce of the land in this country. If that is true, that is a matter of first class importance for a Government confronted with the gravest industrial prospect that any Government has ever been faced with. We have not merely 1,200,000 unemployed, but from the information which I have as far as the North East Coast is
concerned there does not seem to be any immediate prospect of improvement. A man of very great authority told me last week that things were looking very much worse. It would be a mistake for any Government to depend in the future upon the possibility of our maintaining our position as what is known as the workshop of the world: a very fatal error.
Therefore I should have thought that this is a matter in which it was the duty of the Government to have a careful survey as to the possibilities of the soil. One night last week I had the privilege of being present at a discussion by a number of experts, some of the most eminent experts in this country, on the question of agriculture. There was a Member of the Government present and he took part in the debate. They were discussing the future of agriculture in this country and whether anything more could be done, with or without the help of the Government, to increase the yield of the soil. What struck me very much was the meagreness of the official information which was available. There were learned professors of all kinds and very distinguished agriculturists, including landlords and farmers, men of undoubted standing in the agricultural world, and when they came to quote statistics, though it is perfectly certain that being students of the problem, if statistics were available, they would have produced them, they were not there, and one learned professor quoted certain statistics, and the others contradicted him, but all these statistics were very meagre. They had some which were issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and some which were contained in a small pamphlet. As far as I can see there was nothing else that would help as a substantial contribution to any discussion of this problem. I agree with my right hon. Friend who has just sat down that the time has come for a survey to see whether we can do more to increase the yield of the soil.
If Members of this House will look at the annual Trade and Navigation Returns issued by the Board of Trade, and if they will figure out the produce which this country is capable of raising from the point of view of climate—whether you have the acreage, whether you have enough land for the purpose, is a matter for discussion—they will see that from the point of view
of climate, leaving out sugar, we imported last year £387,000,000 worth of food, of the quality which this country is capable of raising from the point of view of climate. It may be said that we have not enough land for this purpose. That is exactly what we want to ascertain, to see if there are any means of doing it. We have tests in Europe of what can be done with the kind of land which is regarded here as derelict and as impossible of cultivation, and we have tests of what can be done with good soil, in the way of doubling and trebling the yield. Denmark may be mentioned. Whenever you mention it people sniff at it. Why is that? It is because the illustration has been used so often. They say, "Oh, that is Denmark." But there is no happier peasantry in Europe than the Danish peasantry. There is no peasantry in Europe among whom there is so little drudgery. I am not arguing in favour of what happens among the small peasantry in Belgium, Germany, or France. I know that a great deal has been said about the drudgery of the women on the land there, in doing the work of beasts of burden and all that. I am not arguing about that, but in Denmark that is not the case.
You have there a free, independent, happy, prosperous peasantry and a very cultured peasantry. They spend every year about a fortnight or three weeks of their holiday in centres where they attend lectures. I do not say that they learn very much in the course of that time, but it stimulates their interest and gives them directions as to what they are to learn in their studies during the rest of the period. I should have thought that that was a precedent worth copying. A Dane who knows both Danish and English agriculture, because he took up a farm here and in a short time doubled and trebled the produce of that farm, said to me the other day that the qualities of English soil are infinitely superior to those of Danish soils, and he said, "In my judgment you could be self-supporting in this island." I am not saying that that is the case, but I do say this, that it is for the Government to take the necessary steps to find out. I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend, when he had the opportunity, did not introduce a more drastic Bill. He could have done so. He says that he would not have had the support. I do
not agree with him. He would have had the support of hon. Members here, who were more numerous in the last Parliament than they are in this, and they would have put him in a position to enable him to carry his Bill. I believe also that he would have had the support of a great many hon. Members on the opposite side, who are just as anxious to get this information as any of the hon. Members above the Gangway are.
I may refer to one or two figures. After all we are on a statistical Bill and therefore figures matter. If in this country you had the same population on the soil as you have in Denmark, where the peasants are doing well and living well, you would have a population of something like seven millions cultivating the land. If you take those who are indirectly concerned with agriculture in Denmark, in the work of distribution through the creameries and all the rest, you would have between 13 and 14 million people in agriculture directly and indirectly in this country. You may say that the land of this country will not enable you to do that. That is what we want to find out. I am not making any statement, but I do say that it is so important that it is worth investigating and it is worth having a survey.
The soil in Denmark is not good soil on the whole. There is a great deal of land which would be regarded as impossible of cultivation in this country. There are immense sand dunes and there are large tracts of swamp and sand but this is what has happened in that country. Between 1866 and 1919, which represents the period of agricultural development, the agricultural area was increased by nearly 900,000 acres. If you multiply that by the size of this country, as compared with Denmark, it would represent over 5,000,000 acres in this country. In addition to that the forest area was increased by 250,000 acres. Take Belgium. The figures there show that in 1846 they had 810,000 acres of uncultivated land. By 1923 that had been reduced to 252,000 acres. What can be done by Danes and Belgians can be done by people here, especially as we have over 1,000,000 people here who have nothing whatever to do, and Heaven alone knows when they are going to get jobs. You cannot tell.
I was very much impressed by the speech delivered recently by the hon.
Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) upon this subject. It shows that those who have examined the unemployment problem for years, as he has done, have come to the conclusion that it is better, even for those who have not been engaged in the cultivation of the soil, to take up that work, and that the time has come when you must say to them, "You have got a certain period to get a job in your own line, and if you cannot get it then you must turn on to something which will help both yourself and your family, and will enable you to serve the community instead of destroying yourselves and doing harm to the community." That is the sort of problem which I would like to see the Government facing now. It is very difficult to ask the Minister of Agriculture to accept an Amendment in this form, but what I would ask him to do—and I am very glad that the Prime Minister is here because he has taken a very special interest in this matter: the Minister of Agriculture could not go on without his authority as the head of the Government—is this: could he not promise between this and the House of Lords stage of the Bill to consider whether it is not possible to introduce words in another place which will enable the Government to get a real survey of the possibilities of the land in this country? I am sure that they will be able to do it.
I do not know what the trade balance in this country is. It is not what it was before the War. The trade balance with visible and invisible exports then, in spite of the fact that we were buying food at a very considerably increased rate, enabled us to invest £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 yearly abroad. I met a great authority on this subject the other day, and he had come to the conclusion that, even with the invisible exports, the balance is against us at present. I am not expressing any opinion, but it is a matter which we should endeavour to work out, and it is very difficult to argue it without looking into the matter. Meantime we are purchasing abroad £387,000,000 worth of food, a large percentage of which can be produced by the soil of this country. Nobody doubts that. The Ministry of Agriculture have the figures at their disposal and they are available to everybody. All we have to do is to take a country like Belgium, or Denmark, or Germany, and see the
cattle, the pigs, the poultry, the corn which are produced in those countries and compare them with what is done in this country.
Compare the use which is made of poor soil in the way of the improvement of cultivation, and of soils like those which we have in the North of Scotland and in my part of the country, North Wales, which formerly were clad to their summits with forests. A great deal of the Navy of Charles II was built of the old oak cut in the forests of Snowdonia. The oak of England was the oak of Wales and the hearts of oak were Welsh hearts. Where are those forests now? They have vanished. There are one or two gnarled specimens left. What they could produce 300 years ago they could produce again. Go to Norway. You get there timber grown on very high land, and gradually you can force it higher and higher, but you must first of all have a survey to see what the possibilities are. Mere statistics, when farmers send in an account of what they are actually doing, are not enough. The Government itself ought to undertake a survey as to whether they think the best use is made of the land. My right hon. Friend the late Minister of Agriculture said that there was 20 per cent. of even the cultivated land of this country which was under-cultivated. That is more or less the figure which I have also. It is under-cultivated. I should probably put it very much higher from the information at my disposal. In addition to that we have got millions of acres which are not cultivated at all. The Government ought to undertake this survey. They ought to undertake it at the outset of their career. I do not see how the Minister of Agriculture is going to handle this valuation unless he gets the facts. It is all very well to get farmers and landlords and agricultural labourers together to discuss things. It is not their problem. You have first of all to take it in hand from the point of view of the community, and in order to do so to get at the facts by a bold and searching inquiry.

Mr. E. WOOD: I am sure that the House will have no complaint to make that hon. Gentlemen opposite have used this opportunity to introduce a subject which, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)
said, yields in importance to no other. I certainly welcome any opportunity, and the Government welcomes any opportunity, that this House may take of evincing its interest in what is the foundation problem of English national life. I therefore welcome warmly the opportunity of devoting an hour or two of our time to these matters. Before I deal with some of the rather wider questions that have been raised, I wish to say a word or two about the Amendment before the House. My hon. Friend who moved it is one of the most persuasive Members of a persuasive assembly. He never fails to charm the House with his eloquence and his arguments, and I sometimes think that the more uncertain he is of his arguments the greater is the draught that he is able to make upon his powers of charm and persuasion. I think that he, indeed, had need of some such extra draught on his powers this afternoon, in submitting this Amendment. I say that for reasons which I will endeavour to give. I am not quite sure what the hon. Member meant by the Amendment. He was rather modest in what he claimed for it. He said that he was not at all sanguine that he had chosen the right form of words for the object that he had at heart. He said he thought I might do better—a very modest attribution of superior skill to a Government Department that, on behalf of my Department, I welcome while I hesitate to accept. But, while he was thus modest, he went on to say that what he really meant me to ascertain was something quite different from that which the Amendment in terms demanded.
What does the Amendment ask? It asks that we shall obtain a return of land which is, or has at any time been, capable of being used as arable. In so far as it is being used as arable to-day, it is already in. Therefore that part of the Amendment is unnecessary. With regard to the second part, "has at any time been capable of being used as arable," I give full rein to my imagination in allowing myself to think what land, under that definition, could conceivably be excluded. Forty or 50 or 70 years ago I believe that those of our grandparents who lived in London and were fond of shooting might have shot snipe in Eaton Square. All the land of England at some
moment, no doubt, was capable of being used as arable. I heard a friend of mine just now mention London. Obviously all the buildings of England are built upon land that was at some time capable of being used at arable. But, of course, my hon. Friend did not mean that. I make that plain to the House only in order to show what is the difficulty that he is up against when he comes down and tries to draft an Amendment that is to do what he wants to do, or what I think he wants to do, which is to ascertain what land in England to-day is being badly cultivated.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not being cultivated.

Mr. WOOD: Being badly cultivated, under-cultivated, or uncultivated. That is a definite objective that we may set before us. Therefore, let me at once address myself to that more general question. I do not suppose that there is anyone who goes about the country to-day with his or her eyes open who is not conscious of a not altogether pleasant feeling of anxiety and a feeling even stronger than that. I do not quarrel for a moment with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, or with the Seconder, who laid stress rightly upon the importance of the reaction between the agricultural and the industrial employment problem as it exists to-day. Incidentally, however, let us make our speeches on that subject with a little caution, because the actual figures last year of those employed on the land, oddly enough, went up.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Not in Scotland.

Mr. WOOD: I am talking about England and Wales. When we make general statements about the population flowing into the towns off the land it is well to check those statements by actual facts. But that does not affect the intimate reaction between the two. Nor do I quarrel with those who say that land is limited in amount, and that, therefore, it is not in the national interest that anything but the best use should be made of it. I would accept that quite simply. But there is a difficulty there which you must face. Do not make the mistake of supposing that you can judge this question purely on a statistical basis of acreage. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made a very powerful appeal to us to recognise the seriousness of the position,
in which we had a large number of acres at present not doing their full work in the national system. He went on to say that he thought their full work was to produce a great many things, a great chunk of that £350,000,000 worth of goods that we at present import—if it could be done. I agree most heartily with him. I wish only to emphasise this: The problem is dependent not only upon figures of acreage. You have not done your problem if you have been over England and picked out a certain amount of land uncultivated, under-cultivated, and so on, and have produced an acreage that is under-cultivated or uncultivated. Why is land under-cultivated or uncultivated? The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do. If you want to make a party point you might say that it is due to landlords. You would not know what everybody else would know, that that was not true, or, at any rate, on examination you would come to know that it was not true. What is the reason?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Nobody has raised that issue.

Mr. WOOD: I have raised it now in order to put it out of the way and to prevent its being raised later. I am not saying anything in a controversial spirit, not at all. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will be quite entitled to criticise me when I say anything controversial. The reason why that land is not cultivated is that, in the main, competitive conditions do not allow of its cultivation. I know you may qualify that by saying that we have not applied education and science sufficiently to the problem. That is quite true. But I happen to live in the country, where I see derelict cottages also, away up on hills and hillsides, and the reason for their condition is that the land has gone out of cultivation owing to the termination of the period of high prices on which it came into cultivation at the time of the Napoleonic Wars—and to some extent during the last War. My own land went out of cultivation, or part of it, and houses ceased to be lived in when the Napoleonic War crisis came to an end. The right hon. Gentleman says, "You can grow a lot more of what you want to eat in England on your own soil." I agree with him. It can be done, at a price. You may be able to improve your methods by this or that
or the other improvement, but when you have done that it comes down to the question, "Can you do it at the price?"
As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, that is a question on which the great industrial population of the country has a final and decisive voice. When he preaches that gospel with all his eloquence and persuasiveness to the House, what he is really doing is to invite the House and, through the House, the country, to reconsider the deliberate policy that it has pursued for 60 or 70 years past, a policy which, as he now sees, and, indeed, as all men now see, has brought agriculture and the men and women who live by agriculture, who live on the land, into a position of straitened circumstances. Therefore, as I am one of those who have always held that view, as I would like to see agriculture pro-clueing much more and believe that it could produce much more if it secured the sympathy and the support of the great industrial population, I welcome the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends opposite in an appeal to the country to approach the whole problem with open minds and without prejudice. That I most warmly welcome. But it is not only that.
5.0 P.M.
The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech here a week or two ago in which he said that on the advice that he had received he thought that England was the worst farmed country in the world. That suggestion I most heartily deny and contest. It is not true on the face of it. It would be quite possible, indeed, to prove the exact opposite on the much quoted pamphlet of Sir Thomas Middleton. We have had the comparisons with Denmark. I shall not weary the House with the figures now, but hon. Members may take it from me that, so far from that statement being true, one reason why British agriculture in the last century has found it difficult to compete with imports from abroad was that we were farming too high for competition against imports that were making their way in the world as a result of the ability to farm cheaply, to farm low, and to get a very low yield out of an almost illimitable number of acres. Therefore, I submit that it is not a question of arable acreage, nor of rather ill-founded attacks based upon unfamiliarity with
the problem. May I ask one other question? What is your test of efficiency in farming? Most people say they want to see farming carried on efficiently. Is your object a system by which you can produce what you want to get out of the land as efficiently and as cheaply as you can? If that be your object, you will go in for all sorts of machinery and for the development of labour-saving devices. The more you develop towards that ideal, the more you will find the population on the land going down. It is not my ideal. My ideal is a form of agriculture which, while being well carried on, will strike a balance, with the balance slightly tilted, or a good deal tilted, in favour of keeping on the land the maximum population which the land will support. That is the ideal at which we should all aim, for a great many reasons with which I do not weary the House, but which are largely common to us all.
What is the relevance of these general considerations to the points which have been urged? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen say: "Let us have the facts. We want accurate statistics so that we may know where we are in this matter." I agree, but you are not going to get accurate statistics of the sort you want, and the sort I want, out of the occupiers and the farmers on the soil. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is quite right in that respect. What he really wants, and what I should like, would be really reliable information as to how much could be grown on the land in England, and at what price. That is not a question for the occupier. It is a question for agricultural and statistical experts. If you go to the ordinary farmer and ask him how much of his land could be made arable, what answer can the poor man possibly give you? It is obviously impossible for him to give you an answer, and you would be merely wasting his time and your own by asking. If you could get full information as to the actual condition of English land, the different categories of English land, and the possibilities of production from English land—at a price—then you would indeed secure a great deal of valuable information.
That brings me to what was said by the Mover and Seconder of the Amend-
ment, as well as by the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in my present office, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, on the question of a survey. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs asked the Prime Minister if it would be possible to give an undertaking that we would consider the question of a general survey between now and the arrival of the Bill in another place with a view to the inclusion of some such provision if it were found possible at that stage. I do not speak with final and decided judgment on the point, but I am inclined to doubt whether this Bill, which is designed for annual returns, is a Bill in which any such provision as that which I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite has in mind could rightly be incorporated. This Bill deals entirely with the provision of returns annually for the sake of the annual stocktaking. I have in mind, if it could be achieved, something quite different. I would like to get a national record of the state and possible productivity of English land, and, therefore, while I will certainly consider what has been suggested on this point, I am inclined to doubt whether this Bill is the Bill in which such a proposal should be carried out.
I have been for some time past turning over in my mind the question of how I could achieve the object of a survey such as the right hon. Gentleman opposite alluded to this afternoon. It is not a very easy problem. It is quite easy to draw tip a form. It is quite easy to send out forms broadcast all over the country. It is also quite easy for that form to come back containing information which is valueless. The right hon. Gentleman is not without experience as to the relative values of forms, and of the information which may be returned on them. The point to which I am trying to apply my mind, and to which the Government are devoting their attention, is in what way it might be possible either to utilise existing powers, or, if need be, take more powers, in order to place themselves in a position to get information of a reliable character which they could place before this House and either ask it to support any policy which they recommended, or afford it an opportunity of discussing any proposition which the House itself might desire to make. I do not differ from hon.
Members opposite in the object which they seek to serve. I do not think the means they have in view are right, and I hope I have given reasons for thinking that this Amendment in any case will not do. I can assure those who have moved in this matter that I am not losing sight of the desirability of placing ourselves in a position to get as reliable information as we can, in order that the country as a whole may be in a position to draw reliable conclusions from it.

Mr. LANSBUBY: I am not an agriculturist, as everybody knows, but there is a great deal of information already at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture as to the use of the land. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister really intends to do in regard to this survey, but when he says that he is not quite sure how much land is available which could be profitably used, I think he should inquire as to how some land, even in the towns, was used during the War. He will find that out of what appeared to be most hopeless soil very large crops were obtained by the men and women who worked allotments. I served on a committee for about four years during the War, and I can say from experience that we were amazed at what was produced by London women and children and old men out of plots which at first seemed to consist almost entirely of bricks and refuse. No one who took any part in local government at that time, and who had to deal with the cultivation of vacant land, could fail to observe that all the theories about what could be produced from the land were being knocked on the head by the actual results obtained through sheer practice. When we hear about the amount of land that is out of cultivation, and consider the multitude of men and women who are out of work, it seems to be simply playing with the question to get away from it again this afternoon with a promise that if possible some very nebulous scheme may be put into the Bill. If the form of words proposed by the Mover of the Amendment is not right, then another form of words should be found to carry out this purpose.
Of course the right hon. Gentleman knows much more about agriculture than I do, and he should therefore be aware of the reason why people gave up cultivating land at the end of the Napoleonic wars.
The industrial revolution was just then beginning, and as the industrial revolution went on, people found they could get more money and better returns out of industry than out of agriculture. That happened 70 years or more ago, and you are now up against the fact that you are, as it were, at the end of that industrial cycle. You cannot now do what was possible during its first 50 years when practically all the markets of the world were at the feet of England. Those who have been your customers are now your competitors, and you have now to face the fact, as we were told the other night in a Committee Room upstairs, that many other nations which did not formerly use wheat are now using it, and there is likely to be, in a short time, a real shortage of wheat. It is an appalling thing that with nearly 2,000,000 people out of work, bread has been 10d. and 11d. a quartern loaf. At the risk of being thought an impudent townsman, I say that for us to be paying that price when large areas of our own land, the best wheatbearing land in the world, are out of cultivation, is a scandal to any Ministry of Agriculture, whether Labour, Tory or Liberal. The question has been raised of whether or not it would pay. Again at the risk of being considered impudent, I wish to say that I go about England a great deal, and not being too big or too ignorant to try to learn, and meeting with farmers of all sorts, I know that there is a great diversity of ability and efficiency in the cultivation of land. I know a farmer in Berkshire who gets much more out of the land than the man next door to him, and when I am told that it is all a question of price, I deny that proposition.
I say it is very largely a question of effete methods and downright inefficiency. Again I am going to say what I know. I have seen townsmen taken on the land and turn heavy, clayey Essex soil into a French garden of the very best description, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to see it, I can take him or any other Member of this House to see it. It is all a question of whether you are prepared to use the proper methods of cultivating the soil. The apples that won the prize for Empire apples given by the late Lord Northcliffe, when he held his show, were grown from trees planted by London unemployed men at Hollesley Bay, and to tell me, at this time of day,
that it is a question of whether the land will pay is beside the point. I yield to the right hon. Gentleman opposite and to many other hon. and right hon. Members about agriculture, except when it comes to facts. They will not deny that the land on the other side of the North Sea is more sour and unkind than the land of Norfolk and Suffolk. Yet Denmark is the classic example of a nation that was ruined, almost down and out, 70 years ago. Then its Government took in hand the organisation of education and of co-operation, and at the end made Denmark the richest country agriculturally in Europe. That has been done, not by protective tariffs but by efficient co-operative organisation and by the Government doing another thing which ought to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We, in this country, have never begun to think what is the proper method of education for children in country districts, and I should like to send every Minister of Education across to Denmark to learn from them how to get children to love the soil and to be able to get their living off the soil. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Why say. "Hear, hear!" and not do it? What earthly use is it?
Here we are, talking very solemnly. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has spoken to-day, as he has spoken in this House at least a dozen times during the last couple of years, and he is cheered. Members of the Government get up and say they quite agree that it is a very grave and menacing situation, and then we go home, and nothing is done. Everything anyone proposes is the wrong way. Then, for God's sake, tell us the right way. To me it is a most maddening thing to sit here and listen to good-intentioned people, who forget that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and who forget altogether that nations go to Hell in just, the same way as individuals. Here we are up against this question, with miles of land in England. I ride in railway trains and along the roads in this country thousands of miles in the course of a month, and there are hundreds of miles of land, and I will not believe that it is beyond the wit of Englishmen to organise labour on that land if they give them the opportunity. Further, it is very much a question of men being able to get to
the land. What I would like this survey to tell us is, why it was that during the War we could have many acres of land thrown open to us for cultivation, but we cannot have it now. Even the public parks during the War were turned up and crops were put in, and we demonstrated what men could do. Why cannot that be done now for the unemployed? What a relief it would be for the unemployed of every town.
It is no good saying there is not the land, because we found it during the War in London. It was a wonderful thing how much vacant land you could find in London when you wanted to find it, but the whole of those activities have been shut clown since the War. They have been discontinued, and people have been pushed off. I am saying this because I am certain that a big bulk of the unemployed, in spite of the fact that they have not had any training, could earn a very considerable amount by doing a little digging on the land. I want to know why the land cannot be made available for them. The Minister of Agriculture said he did not want to be controversial, though he rather threw it at us that we might say it was landlordism that prevented it. To a very large extent that is so, because there are people who say: "If you pay so much, you can come on to this piece of land," and there are other people who say: "Under no circumstances will we allow you to have this land." It is the business of the Ministry of Agriculture, whatever stands in the way, to get that barrier removed, and unless you do, I am certain of this, that one day we shall sit in this House, and there will be a mob outside waiting to know where their next day's food is to come from. You will shoot them down with aeroplane bombs and so on.
The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that the consumption of wheat is going up and that the production of wheat is going down. If the President of the Board of Trade were here, he would not deny, either, that the markets for our manufactured articles are getting scarcer and scarcer. The things that you want to exchange with the wheat are wanted by the people who are producing the wheat. It is said from the benches opposite: "Lot us send people to Australia or to Canada to clear away the
waste places of the earth, to put in seed, and to grow food, so that they may take our manufactured articles." What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Agriculture, is why we should send thousands of men out of the country when we have got land here waiting for them to till. Is it reasonable to tell men to go sixteen thousand miles to do the very thing that men can do here under your nose? When I am told that it will not pay, and that Protection is wanted—because that was the inference from the right hon. Gentleman's speech—I say, first of all, that we want the land freed from the incubus of landlordism; we then want the very highest and most skilful organisation of labour on the land; and then we want that there shall be no middlemen interfering with the marketing of the products from the producer to the consumer. Then we want another thing done. After we have got the land properly organised and properly cultivated, with no one making profits in between, we will join with you in the prevention of any low-paid labour outside pulling down the standard of labour here, but we are not going to vote for protective tariffs to protect fox hunting, grouse shooting, and all the other occupations in which many people engage.
It is all very well for an hon. Member opposite to shake his head. I will take him to another place in Suffolk, just outside Woodbridge, where there are miles and miles of land used for nothing but game preserves—an Indian Rajah used to own most of it—and I will show him where portions of that land have been made by unemployed labour to grow good food for any people who need good food. It was said at the beginning by experts, very much like hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who think they know all about the land, that we would never grow anything there, but we have grown everything we put in, and have had good produce come out. Therefore, I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that it is time we all stopped giving so much sympathy and being so gravely disturbed and thinking what a menace it is. It is very nearly time we settled clown and produced some plan for dealing with idle land and idle men.

Colonel COURTHOPE: We have just listened to a very interesting and
remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) expressed the wish, that many of us feel, that we should get at least as great a production from much of our land here as is obtained from some of the countries on the Continent. The hon. Member has indicated to the House, that, in his opinion, one of the principal obstacles in the way of achieving that end is what he calls the incubus of landlordism. I will ask him, because I believe he is a fair-minded man, to take an opportunity of studying production costs in those countries and in this, and, if he does so, he will find that the one thing that sticks out most, the most striking difference between production costs in those countries and in this is that they pay to their landlords a very much higher rent than is paid here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where, in Denmark?"] In Denmark, Holland, and so on. Within the last two days I have been studying costs of production of sugar beet, and some figures have been taken out in detail from a large number of farms, selected at haphazard, in Holland and in the eastern counties here, all farms on which sugar beet was being grown. The average rent it the eastern counties here was only a trifle over £1 an acre, and the average rent on the Dutch farms was over £5 19s. per English acre. I only raise this point because I want to ask the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley to look into these production costs, and I think he will be forced, by his own fair-mindedness, to the conclusion that, whatever is the obstacle to higher production in this country, it is not excessive rent.
I will now come to the underlying motive of this Amendment, so far as I understand it, and I may say that I have great sympathy with it, bat surely you can never achieve the end you have in view through any request you might make to the present occupiers for returns. You will have to carry out your survey on entirely different lines if you are to be able to form a conclusion as to what relation the present production of our land bears to the maximum possible production, because that is what the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) wants. I would suggest that a very much simpler method, and one that would be reason-
ably accurate probably, would be that, just in the same way as one of the Committees on Reconstruction during the War, commonly known as the Acland Committee, was able to make a return, which everyone has accepted as reasonably accurate, of the vacant land in this country suitable for timber production. so, I believe, without very great difficulty, committees of experts could make estimates of the land in this country, and the production that could be expected from the different districts, with wages at a given figure and with reasonable efficiency of cultivation. What I mean is, do nut take a thing farmed by farmers, but take, we will say, a geological atlas, and work on that, and, I believe, it would be relatively easy to say that on this or that area of lower greensand, with wages at a given figure, and reasonable efficiency, wheat could be produced so many quarters per acre. If you could get estimates of that kind by experts, you could compare them with your actual production which you get already, and you would have much more reliable figures upon which to form your conclusions so far as wheat production is concerned. You have them already so far as timber production is concerned. I hope the hon. Baronet will agree that some such method would achieve his end much better than to get the individual farmer to tell us what his farm might yield under the best conditions, because that is what this Amendment would do.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Debate raised this afternoon by my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir A. Sinclair) has performed a good service not only to this House but, if I may say so, to agriculturists generally, for it has shown quite clearly that there are many problems of agriculture which are not so controversial as to divide the House into three separate portions. There has been general agreement that the inquiry to be made and the returns to be provided under this Bill will be inadequate for the larger purpose advocated by nearly everyone of those who have taken part in this Debate. The formal annual return presented by farmers will be something in the nature of a rough-and-ready census of production, but it cannot pretend to be strictly accurate. It certainly will not be wide enough in its inquiry, and it is bound to leave out of account a very large number of elements which no return will ever be
able to give in tabular form. One of the difficulties in dealing with British agriculture is that it is not one agricultural problem. I used to find, in the days when I was responsible for the office, of which the right hon. Gentleman is now the head, that many of my friends, and others who were not quite so friendly, would persist in talking about "the agricultural problem." As a matter of fact, it is a group of about 20 or 30 problems. It varies so enormously with the great variety of cultures in this island, the immense variety of soils, drainage, climate, and—what is just as important—the great variation in race, that you cannot lay down rules which will be of general application to the whole country, as though you were dealing with one great problem.
The proposal made by my hon. and gallant Friend was by no means as narrow as the exact wording to which he had to resort, as he, obviously, was in difficulties in drafting his Amendment. But the general idea to which, I understood, the Minister of Agriculture gave acceptance this afternoon, is that a survey, however you may form it, will be of great service not only to him, but to all those who are thinking about the difficulties of farmers and of labourers, and of those who would wish to be either one or the other, but who, at the present time, have no opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman dismissed the problem of landlordism by expressing his view, and then—as he said in simple English—putting the problem on one side. I am afraid we cannot dismiss any of the aspects of this problem by putting them on one side. It crops up in one form or another. It is forced on us in one direction or another, and we cannot overlook it.
I will deal, not with the political aspect of landlordism for the moment, but with its purely technical aspect, and I should like to be allowed to remind him of a remarkable paper read by his own Assistant Secretary to the Royal Society some four years ago, in which he described what he thought were the proper duties of an efficient landlord, who took an interest in the cultivation of his land, and in the care of his people, and who ought to be doing all he could to produce as much from the soil as it was capable of producing. His opinion was that, in many directions, and amongst a very large number of people,
there was either carelessness or ignorance to such a degree as to handicap those who actually live on the soil or attempt to cultivate it. The personal element, and the incapacity of a great many landlords, and a great many agents as well, is one of the aspects of this problem that we cannot ignore. There has been a great advance made so far in the last generation. The improvement in the skill and knowledge of land agents is one of the things on which we have reason to congratulate ourselves, and the tendency to use the modern university, to induce the tenants to use the modern university, and to induce county councils to give attention to the rural aspect of education in country schools, are all to the good. Then there are a large number of younger landlords, under the pressure of the time, and also from a desire to perform their full duty to the countryside, who are devoting themselves less to sport, and much more to the cultivation of the soil, and to playing their part in the economic organisation of the countryside.
All that is to the good, and I do not believe any agricultural returns on the basis of a census of production will ever give the right hon. Gentleman a full measure of the changes that have taken place for the better in those directions. But there has also been a tendency in the other direction. Since the War, a good deal of arable land has undoubtedly gone out of cultivation or, I ought to say, gone back to grass, for the amount of land that has gone out of cultivation is comparatively small. But a great deal of land, which was under the plough five or six years ago, has now gone back to grass, and will probably remain purely pasture land for many years to come. The effect of that on the country districts has been, in some places, really tragic. Hinds, as we call them in the far North, or horsemen elsewhere, have been put out of work, just as many steelworkers are out of work in the North-East of England, and the general tendency has been, in a great many districts, for the number of men, women and children supported on the land to grow less during the past five or six years.
It would be much better, I think, if Ministers of Agriculture in the future would not constantly direct the attention
of the farming classes in particular to any kind of Protection as being the natural way out of their great difficulties. The light hon. Gentleman must know that Protection is not likely to play a permanent part in the policy of this country. Whatever he may hope, the difficulties are too great. His own Government cannot remain in power permanently, and even if they were to embark on it now, it is quite possible their successors might be forced to repeal the very proposals he himself had introduced. The fate of the Corn Production Acts has taught the farming classes a great lesson, that they cannot rely on the agricultural fiscal policy of this country being settled for all time, for when the time comes for the repeal of these financial benefits under the Corn Production Acts, the reaction is so great, that it drives men out of arable farming right back to grass. The tendency at the time was exaggerated by the fear that never again were they to be put on a fair footing. it would be better if Ministers of Agriculture would constantly direct the attention of the farming classes in other directions. They can give enormous help in many ways by a greater spread of knowledge amongst all classes in the farming community. Farmers themselves, certainly in the North of England, have shown a much greater tendency during the last 20 years to make use of knowledge gained in experimental farming. They are not so sceptical about science, and it would have been impossible in Northumberland, Cumberland and the Lowlands of Scotland, especially in the East, to maintain their high culture if they had not used the brains of the scientists, and realised that farming is really a scientific occupation.
The varieties of race, I said, were one of the things we had to take into account, and here, undoubtedly, the right hon. Gentleman meets with great difficulty. Anyone who has a benevolent agricultural policy must realise that the variety of opinion, the relative conservatism of certain districts in the country, the practices of various counties, where it is extremely difficult to break them of their old customs and to get them to adopt new methods, the influence which good or bad land agents may have over vast areas—all these things are matters on which there ought to be fuller' knowledge, which do provide
us with some guide as to the direction in which agricultural development should go.
With these few observations on the general tendency and some of the difficulties of the farming industry, I come back to the original proposal before the House. It is quite clear the Minister himself is anxious that he and his Department should be endowed with a much fuller knowledge of the condition of agricultural England and Wales. I am sure he will pardon me for saying he is bound to know his own district better than the other counties of England, and I do not think any one man, even one who has seen so much of the farming world as Sir Thomas Middleton, is capable of forming an opinion of every county and of every farm in every county. It is impossible for one man to do that, and, if his survey is to be effective, he will require 100 Sir Thomas Middletons to do the work. I admit there are not many gentlemen who can compete with Sir Thomas Middleton in skill and knowledge, but, at all events, let us use the best brains we can discover in the first instance to enable the Minister to collect the information necessary, to collect it in all its aspects, and to think, not only of the corn farms, but of the milk farms; not only of the big farms, but of the little farms, and of the market gardeners in towns, the part the railways play in giving easy markets, and the part also played even by industries outside agriculture to provide the artificial manures, without which British agriculture cannot improve.
We have no reason to despair of good farming in this country. The best farm here is as good as any in the world, and the worst is about the worst in the world. Between those two great ranges there is a large middle lot capable of indefinite improvement. When reminded so often, as we have been to-day, of the State of Denmark, we must not overlook the fact that 70 years ago Danish agriculture was in a had way, incompetent, a good deal of the land badly farmed, the produce poor, and they did not use very large quantities of manure. All that has been changed. It has been changed, as the right hon. Gentleman has been reminded, very largely because in the days of the Schleswig-Holstein war the Danes were
driven back on their own land as the only means of supporting themselves. The landlords very largely farmed their own land, which gradually was broken up among much smaller holdings, and they all combined with a community interest. That is just as possible in this country as in Denmark. Much can be done by the co-operative movement, both as to sale and purchase. What has been possible in Denmark will be possible in England if the right hon. Gentleman will accumulate the necessary information and take his policy along the lines he has spoken of this afternoon. Rural England will then have reason to be grateful to him.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not intend to attempt to go over any part of the ground which has been covered this afternoon, particularly when I see the discomfort on the face of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, who seems rather annoyed because this first Measure has taken as long as it has. But I think he will agree that no more important subject could be discussed than that we are discussing this afternoon. It is, at any rate, a fact that political prejudices are largely disappearing in the face of the economic calamities which seem to be threatening our people. I suppose most hon. Members have seen a remarkable series of articles which have been appearing in a London newspaper from the pen of the late Minister of Shipping. In the course of those articles, we learn that in the year 1913 the proportion of oil-driven ships on Lloyds' Register was 3 per cent. of the total, and that last year it had grown to 30 per cent. That suggests that coal for the mercantile marine is largely disappearing from purview. We have to face that fact, and it is of greater importance that this House should sit down to a calm consideration of the economic factors that involve hundreds of thousands of people than that we should be discussing half a hundred other trumpery subjects.
The Minister of Agriculture thought he scored a point against the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherlandshire (Sir A. Sinclair) when he proved that the hon. Baronet's proposed Amendment would bring in land, say, in London which was at present built over. That may be so, but I think it is true that his own Bill as it stands—as I hope to
show him in a moment—leaves out of account altogether great stretches of agriculture land which, in so far as I can see, should come within the scope of the Bill. Take, for example, land, some of which I know, which was arable land two or three years ago and which just now is being planted with timber by the landowner. That land is cut out of the scope of this Bill altogether. Yet it is a great grievance on the part of the crofters in many parts of Scotland that land which gave an economic return a few years ago, land on which farming was done, is now being afforested by the landowners, who, for one reason or another, are anxious to chase the people from the soil—

Major STEEL: Not to chase the people from the land.

Mr. JOHNSTON: As a matter of fact, I could give instances of it. I could give Glenlonan, Argyllshire. The hon. and learned Member who represents Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) knows that this is true, that the landlord there is actually putting tress upon the land which was arable land three or four years ago. I could give a number of other illustrations. At Loch Aline Mr. Craig Seller has been clearing off the people there. Actually, when an old man or woman dies, he takes down the cottage and buries the stones beneath the soil so that there should be no memorial or memory of the house. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) was there a few years ago. However, I do not want to be side-tracked from my main subject. I take it, that it is an historic fact that the landowners have undoubtedly in parts of Scotland cleared the soil because the peasants do not pay. The peasants do not pay. They do not get the returns from them that they get from the deer forests and grouse moors. They thus prefer the deer forests, the grouse moors, and so on,, and they do not have the same proportion of old people for whom they have to pay poor rates. Many of the landowners have in the past been at considerable pains to drive the peasants off the soil. If there be any fact in Scottish history more easily demonstrable than that, I do not know of it.
Another remark of the right hon. Gentleman which surprised me this afternoon was that last year there was an increase, if I understood him aright, in the agricultural population in England.
Perhaps he would give me his attention for a, moment on this point. I understood him to say that there had been an actual increase in the agricultural population of England last year, or the last two or three years.

Mr. WOOD indicated dissent.

Mr. JOHNSTON: He gave an answer which I here hold in my hand, showing that the number of agricultural workers between 1921 and 1924 in England and Wales had fallen by 63,000.

Mr. WOOD: What I said was—although I had not the exact figures in my hand at the time—that there had been an increase in the last year compared to the year before. The hon. Member will see that the figures are not comparable.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is only last year? Mr. WOOD: That is what I said.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Taking it so, let me say that we have to face this great problem. There is the Danish way of doing this. I do not think with one hon. Member that it is impossible to face it. Even under the present system, I think it is possible. In the Debate on the Scottish Estimates, illustrations were given from the constituency represented by my hon. Friend for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) showing undoubtedly that the peasantry can thrive, provided they co-operate in the marketing of their produce, provided they wipe out the middleman, and wipe out the grafters who have taken their money in the past. I urge the Minister who looks after agriculture in Scotland to be at more considerable pains in the way of efficient propaganda for agricultural co-operation, and to facilitate it. Something very considerable can then undoubtedly be done. The collection of statistics which the right hon. Gentleman desires will be valuable; but, valuable as they will be, they will not be complete, and for the life of me I cannot conceive why he does riot desire to have those statistics complete.
In the town in which I live I can see miles of land, of good, arable land, periodically flooded by the overflow from a choked river, which is throwing out of use land that might be used for agricultural purposes. A very few pounds indeed would provide for a small scheme and all that land could be speedily
drained. The Scottish Board of Agriculture, however, would not spend the £10 necessary to do that work, with the result that, literally, thousands of acres are rendered unfit for cultivation. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to interfere in this Bill with sporting tracts at all. He is taking no steps whatever to bring land which is partially used for sport and partially used for grazing even partially under cultivation.
Our agricultural population is decreasing in Scotland steadily year by year. We can travel now, in parts, 30 miles in a railway train and never see a chimney smoking. The place has a deathlike silence. Unless speedy and immediate steps are taken, not only in the interests of the rural population, but in the interest of the nation generally, we will lose the industrial markets, and I think the outlook for this country is very dismal indeed. I cannot see how this country will be able to maintain the population that it has hitherto maintained. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing? What is he doing by Clause 2 for the, inclusion of land used for deer forests? Is he going to bring in land used in that way, or land used for grouse moors? Is he going to bring in land used as sporting tracts or for deer forest purposes? If not, why not? Why should all these thousands and thousands of acres be excluded from the statistics which he asks for under this Bill? I hope we shall have not merely an explanation which proves that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has been moved in such a way as to make it impossible to attain his object, but that he himself from the Treasury Bench and representing the Government will show to the House a form of words that will bring within the scope of the Bill what I have been suggesting ought to be brought in other than land practically built upon.

Mr. RHYS: If the hon. Member looks at Clause 2 he will find that deer forests are included.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am obliged to the hon. Member. What he says is quite a good point. What I want to get out is this: Will the Department of the right hon. Gentleman bring in land partially used as a deer forest? Will he bring in land used as grouse moors? Will he bring
in land used for sporting purposes other than deer forests If not, why not? I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rhys) will assist me in bringing pressure to bear upon the right bon. Gentleman in this matter, so that the only land that is excluded shall be land at present built upon, which cannot possibly be used for agricultural or grazing purposes. I trust that when we do get these returns IN shall get them county by county. There are counties in Scotland where surveys have taken place, where the figures are already accessible to the Ministry of Agriculture. I hope when we get these statistics the Government will give us a lead, for there are many hon. Members on all sides of the House who will back them up through thick and thin if they will start quickly, start now, while there is yet time, to, as the Prime Minister said recently he would do, hew a way through the vested interests. Let us put the maximum number of people on the soil. Even if what the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) said is not altogether true, even if we cannot put discharged shipyard workers and discharged colliers back immediately on to the soil to produce food, we can at any rate do this, we can stop the depopulation of the countryside, stop the steady drainage to the city, and by a careful survey, by afforestation, plus small holdings, plus co-operative markets, plus Government assistance in every possible way in the provision of roads and light railways—we can do something to increase the number of people which our soil can maintain, do something, certainly, to become more self-supporting in the way of food production than we are to-day.
In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) the Minister said: "Yes, we can produce food, but at a price." At a price! I think he repeated the words three or four times. What price are we paying now for the depopulation of our countryside? What price are we paying through Insurance Acts, what price are we paying through local rating, what price are we paying in the physical, mental, moral and spiritual degradation of our people? What price are we paying in assisted passages for emigration?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I cannot help thinking the hon.
Member is basing a very large argument on an. Amendment dealing with the question of agricultural statistics.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not intend to traverse in any way the restriction you laid down. I merely want to make a brief comment upon what I took to be the conclusive argument of the Minister of Agriculture. It was his conclusion, it was the thing with which he thought he had knocked down all his critics. He said: "Yes, you could produce more food, you could put more people back on the land, but at a price." I merely attempt to show him that when he used those words "but at a price," he was completely shutting his eyes to the terrible price we are paying for the alternative policy, the terrible price we are paying physically, mentally, morally and economically. I am perfectly certain that if a balance sheet were struck, if we were to put proper accountants on the business to find what the present system cost us, we should find it would be infinitely cheaper to spend enormous sums of money in afforesting such land as is suitable for afforestation, in settling smallholders where it was suitable to settle them, in assisting them with co-operative organisation for the marketing of their produce such as has succeeded in Orkney, in building light railways, in tackling people like the MacBrayne Steamship Company which throttle half a countryside, in looking after the provision of roads and assisting agriculture in every way. We could then do for other kinds of agriculture what the Orkadians have done for eggs, we could beat the Danes out of our markets. If the Orkadians can chase the Danes out of Edinburgh and Leith egg market by co-operative marketing and by abolishing the middleman, surely the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture need not hold up his hands helplessly and say, "Yes, we can do it at a price, but that price is impossible."
Nothing is impossible to the people of this country if only we set our minds to it. Look at what the Danes did when they lost their industrial provinces. When the Germans took Schleswig-Hol-stein what faced the Danes but ruin? The Danes turned their co-operative ability to their land. They swept aside all this tommyrot about competition being the life of trade, all this talk about
"Let the strongest man win and to hell with the little man," all the political philosophy upon which the Liberal and Conservative parties have hitherto based their programme. Instead of that they applied themselves to co-operation, to helping one another, to wiping out waste and inefficiency, and they have succeeded, and it is a disgrace to the Ministry of Agriculture for England and Wales and the Scottish Board of Agriculture to take the line they do when they see how a little country like Denmark has been made prosperous. I went about Denmark for several weeks, and I never saw a man who looked as if he were earning less than £4 a week. Here we have starvation, misery, degradation and unemployment round our doors like a sea, and we have no remedy. Nobody has any remedy. We hope that something will turn up. Somebody talks about emigration. Ship them away beyond the seas! To do what? To grow timber and food that they can grow at home. Unless this House of Commons faces the issue it may be that we will not live to see another House of Commons given the time to face the issue, that disasters will come upon this country, that economic disasters will come upon us the like of which the memory of man has not known.

Mr. HARNEY: On looking at this Bill I find it is laid down that the farmer who makes a mistake in any particular in furnishing his return is to be fined £10, unless he can show that he was innocent. Even in the form that the return is confined to by the Bill, we are told, and I believe quite rightly, that it would be of very little use. Why, then, should this very drastic treatment be meted out to the farmer who gives a return which can be of very little value?

Mr. E. WOOD: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to direct our attention at this stage to a point arising on an earlier paragraph in the Bill?

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: Only in connection with the argument that this paragraph refers to the earlier part of the Bill. It would be in order for him to show that the result of this proposal would be to bring into difficulty an agricultural occupier who failed to fill up the return. He would be in order in
referring to the previous paragraph as an argument for or against this particular matter.

Mr. HARNEY: That was the reason I began in a rather roundabout way to reach the Amendment. I really only stood up because I became so interested in the Debate. I had not looked at the Bill before, but my eyes wandered through it, and I noticed this penalty, and I really was doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman really intended to impose such a penalty in respect of a return that is made by a bucolic hand in reference to a very indefinite subject where mistakes are very easily made. The unfortunate man is to be fined £10 unless he does what is practically impossible, proves that he is innocent. I suggest the right hon. Gentleman might consider whether it would not be sufficient if he annexed the penalty in the ordinary way, leaving the presumption of law in favour of the man.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only want to ask the Minister a question with a view to bringing the Debate to a conclusion as far as this Amendment is concerned. I understood from the Minister that he was contemplating something in the nature of a survey, and that he would announce the decision of the Government on that subject later on. I understood that, and if that is so, then as far as we are concerned, we shall be quite satisfied with the reply he gave.

Mr. E. WOOD: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that was the intention to which I tried to give expression. I made it plain, or I tried to make it plain, that I did not think any such survey could usefully be included or incorporated in this Bill, but I said that as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested it I would give it careful consideration, and that if it was not possible I was disposed to consider, and would consider, the possibility of achieving the same object, the survey, in other ways.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. STEPHEN: Before we part with the Bill I would like to draw attention to one fact. There has been general agreement as to the importance of getting suitable agricultural statistics, so that all of us will have a certain amount of knowledge on this subject. The Minister was rather, I thought, inclined to score to his own satisfaction because of having a certain amount of knowledge that nobody else has. He seemed to me to be rather offensive in the way in which he seemed to reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, that is how it appeared to me, that he thought Members on the Labour Benches could have no knowledge, or very much knowledge, about agriculture, I do not profess to myself, but as one whose family was engaged in agriculture and who suffered from landlordism I certainly objected very much to the way in which the Minister spoke on the matter. But that is by the way.
The point I want to draw attention to is the very important agricultural statistics in Scotland which are obtained at the Fiars Courts in Scotland held in connection with the fixing of prices. I am assured by an agricultural student that, possibly, we shall not be able to get those statistics in the future, because, so far, there is no provision in the Church of Scotland Bill—which has been before the House and in Committee—to maintain those statistics. I would like to suggest to the Minister, seeing there is no representative of the Scottish Office here, that he should take account of that fact, and see that the agricultural statistics that come from that Court are really going to be maintained in the future. This agricultural student, a very brilliant student at Oxford University, seemed to be very much concerned about the loss that we would sustain, and I thought it was only right that this point should be raised when the Bill was before the House. I think this small Bill is of much more importance than most of the Measures we are accustomed to discuss in this House, and I believe it will be found to be of much greater importance than the Protocol and a lot of the stuff about reparations and that sort of thing. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will be able to announce to the House at no distant future that he has arranged for a real agricultural survey of our country in order that we may get things done.
There is another point in connection with Scotland, and it is that five million acres are devoted to deer, which is a quarter of the whole of Scotland, and we cannot get a survey too soon as far as Scotland is concerned. With regard to the argument of the Minister of Agriculture about the price of food, one thing that struck me was that he obstinately refused to deal with the question of what had been done in Denmark in the past. Surely we can do in our own country what the Danes have been able to do in their country. I hope we are going to get something out of this Debate, and I trust there is not going to be a whole lot of talk without any material benefit coming to the people. If we do not get something done speedily, this House and a great deal of this country is going to be swept away, and we shall free ourselves from the incubus of landlordism, and get the land for the people to be used by the people, bringing to them decent comfort and gladness.

Mr. WRIGHT: I desire for several reasons to take part in this Debate. One is that the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has referred to myself as having expressed the view that it is possible to support the people of this country on the soil, the rivers and the seaboards. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is my opinion, at any rate. I would like to point out that I am the son of an agricultural labourer, who had charge of a 150-acre farm, which I saw improved to such an extent that in five years its yield was increased 50 per cent. It had an orchard of two acres, and with the returns from the orchard and the poultry we were able to pay the rent of £150 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Hon. Members say, "No, no," but I have given some consideration to this subject for the last 30 years, and if I am wrong in what I am saying, at least I am in good company. Professor Mechi and Sir James Caird have expressed the view that, as a matter of fact, the land of this country had been starved for labour for many years.
Apart from that, Sir Charles Fielding, in a remarkable book recently published, expressed the opinion that if all the counties of this country were producing the amount of food that some are producing in the Eastern part of the
country—and the West soil and climate are as good as in the East—Britain would have food to export after supplying the whole of its people. That opinion cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant to this issue. That is a most important fact to be taken into consideration in regard to one of the greatest crises in our history, as far as food supplies are concerned. Although we have not had any recent survey as far as the land is concerned, during the War a survey was taken of our resources as far as mechanical appliances and man power were concerned. Now we have arrived at an equally important crisis in regard to the men who are on the borderline of starvation, and from that point of view it is just as important that this survey should be taken, because it is long overdue.
The question of agricultural statistics is one of very vital importance. We ought to know exactly the yields of wheat, oats, barley, potatoes, eggs and milk, but where are such statistics to be found? They are not available. I have dug out vast quantities of statistics from various documents and magazines in this connection, but I think they ought to be available in a much more convenient form. According to the report of a Committee of the House of Lords, it appears that in 1884 an inquiry was instituted into the subject of agricultural depression, and evidence was taken. Opinions were expressed by two of the most eminent agriculturists of the day, and one of them advanced the view that in regard to 20 million acres of land in this country, 17 millions were inadequately drained. The other eminent agricultural authority said that the land was yielding only one-fifth of what it was capable of yielding. Surely that is a matter of vital importance? In the "Nineteenth Century Magazine" it was stated that in the year 1888 one of the most eminent authorities on agriculture which this country has ever known, as far as the collection of agricultural statistics go, Prince Kropotkin, expressed the opinion that if the cultivation of this country were brought up to the standard which prevailed in Belgium at that time, we could feed the whole of the people of this country upon our own soil.
There is much more evidence than that. There is the question of wheat land. Professor James Long, a very eminent
writer on agricultural statistics, has expressed the opinion, in a book called "The Coming Englishman," that there are 12,750,000 acres of land in this country similar to the Desert of Lupitz, which has given excellent yields after 25 years' cultivation, and he declares that this 12,750,000 acres in this country could be brought into cultivation if we adopted the same method. If we consider the yield of wheat, our average is round about 32 bushels to the acre. During 1879 our average yield was down to 15 bushels to the acre, and it has increased more slowly than in any other country of the west of Europe during the last 50 years. I think it is a positive disgrace that we are in such a position as far as the improvement of the production of the soil is concerned. Our highest average yield in Britain is 37 bushels to the acre, while the highest yield in Denmark has gone up to 54 bushels to the acre, with an inferior soil and climate to our own.
If you take the yields of allotments, men have produced from 50 to 60 bushels per acre in their spare time after working as agricultural labourers on the land during the rest of the day. I have evidence here, in a book published in 1923, giving the statistics of yields obtained in 1918 of wheat and oats, in which the writer declares that on eight acres of land in Gloucestershire, they produced 80 bushels per acre. The same authority gives instances in Lincolnshire, Worcestershire and Cumberland where they produced from 90 to 100 bushels of oats per acre. Those figures show what we might produce in this country if we adopted more scientific methods of cultivation, and that is a very important point. If we adopted the methods which are practised in other parts of the world relating to intensive cultivation, I am sure we could lift the standard a great deal higher than it is at the present time, when we are importing large quantities of foodstuff from abroad, from the United States, the Argentine and Australia. The other day the Prime Minister of Western Australia declared that the yield of wheat there was 14 bushels to the acre. If we went in for more intensive cultivation, we could get far better yields. Sir Arthur Cotton has told us of very successful experiments in the
south of England out of which very remarkable results were obtained, so remarkable that I scarcely dare relate them for fear of shocking some of the landlords and farmers—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that on this little Bill we can go into the whole question of the methods of agriculture. The Bill is confined merely to the question of agricultural returns.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely, on the question of a Bill relating to statistics on agriculture we are entitled to raise the question of whether those statistics are adequate or not, and whether they ought to be supplemented in various directions in order to give us more accurate returns.

Mr. SPEAKER: That was discussed at two hours' length on an Amendment of which we recently disposed. I allowed the Debate on that Amendment because I thought it did raise that issue.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does not the Third Reading Debate necessarily include, as in order, all the subjects that have been in order on minor Amendments to the Bill? In view of the importance of getting these statistics, surely we are entitled to press for more?

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Before you reply on that point, may I draw attention to the provision in the Bill which asks for a return in writing of the acreage of land in cultivation, specifying the acreage of the several crops thereon? I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Wright) is quite in order in suggesting that the crops he has mentioned should be grown, and thereby included in the returns which are called for by this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: On the Third Reading we are confined really to what is in the Bill, and I have already given a liberal interpretation to that. If it were to go too far, it might raise the whole fiscal question, which would be a remarkable result on a little Bill of this kind.

Mr. WRIGHT: I will endeavour to keep within the limits of the Bill, and, as far as I understand you, Sir, to obey your ruling. I may observe, however, that I made rather careful inquiries from Members who have had a wider experience of debate in this House than myself, and
I was assured that there were wider rather than narrower limits to the Debate. If I have erred, it was quite inadvertently. I was only referring to the question of intensive cultivation because it is often said that we have far more people in this land than we can ourselves support, and I was anxious to prove that what I have stated is perfectly justified. However, I will leave that, as far as yields per acre are concerned, because I have so often referred to this subject in days gone by—partly because one method whereby you can drive a lesson home, either in a class-room or even in the House of Commons, is by constant repetition. I intend to repeat, so long as I am a Member of the House, that the soil of this country is capable of feeding the people, if they apply the science, the knowledge and the resources which are now available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) was called to account the other night for his statement with regard to the yield of eggs that had been obtained in the Orkneys. There is the method of the incubator, which is not irrelevant to this issue, because we are spending about£19,000,000 per annum on eggs imported from all quarters of the globe—liquid eggs, eggs running in from China, rotten eggs, election eggs, and so on. All these things are coming in. Why cannot we produce them here? There is an incubator that has a capacity of 3,000 eggs every time it is set up, at a cost of 1s. 3d. per week. Suppose we multiply this by 10,000! Surely that is within the bounds of this Bill. Again, take the question of milk. Our average yield of milk is about 450 gallons per annum from one milking period to the other; but only last week an account appeared in a Glasgow evening paper of a cow at Strathaven, in Lanarkshire, which produced over 3,000 gallons of milk from one milking period to the other. [Laughter.] Hon. Members smile, because they have never devoted any time to the matter. This is a very important question, and the same remarks apply, not merely to milk yields, but to many other products.
I hope that the statistics for which we are asking will be made available, because I think they will be of great importance in connection with this subject. I speak as the representative
of a division in which there is a very large number of men who have not worked for the last few years. They are faced with starvation, and are living in destitute conditions—under such shameful conditions that I feel that were I one of them, I would not submit very long. I would either alter it by fair means or foul. These men, who have given their strength to the country, might well be cared for, and I think that this is a matter which will help to bring into cultivation the resources of the nation.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not rise to prolong the discussion, but I have one question to put to the Minister with regard to the very important statement that he made as to his contemplating the possibility of a survey. I do not know that he definitely promised it, but his answer in that respect was a very favourable one, because my hon. Friend withdrew his Amendment. It is of vital importance that we should get the information at the earliest possible moment. But a survey over the whole country would take a very long time, and I do not think we could wait for a survey of the whole of the counties of England, Scotland and Wales before action is taken. My suggestion to the Minister is that the survey, with a view to ascertaining the vital facts regarding agriculture, should be undertaken in a few sample counties in England, Scotland and Wales to begin with. I suggest that in each country counties of a different character should be taken—for instance, the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland, the wheat-growing districts of England, and the grazing counties, and the same would apply to Wales. A few counties would be chosen, and a thorough survey undertaken for these few counties to begin with, with a view to ascertaining those facts without which it would be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to formulate any policy that would be satisfactory. Otherwise, he will be doing no more than scratch the surface, like the hens to which the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Wright) has just referred in, if I may say so, a very admirable speech, full of very sound information. I was very sorry that the character of the Bill did not permit of his developing his arguments.

Mr. WRIGHT: So was I!

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is a Bill to ascertain the facts, and, therefore, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps he cannot give me an answer now, and it would not be fair to press him to do so, but it is a very important matter—whether he will undertake to consider, at any rate between now and the time when we meet again, the question I have put to him as to the possibility of a limited survey to begin with, taking sample counties—whether he will go thoroughly into the question whether the best use is made of the cultivated land, whether the best use is made of land that is now treated as waste, and other suggestions which have been made in the course of the Debate about park land, and so on, and also with regard to the question of afforestation? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able, at any rate, to promise that he will consider the question, and that the Prime Minister will also undertake that the Cabinet shall consider it with a view to giving an answer on these points later.

Mr. HARDIE: I should like to ask, in connection with this Bill, what is to be returned when a farmer has land under water? We are told here that the acreage under separate crops must be specified, the acreage of land in fallow, and the acreage of land used for grazing. What part of this Bill includes land that is under water? There is a tremendous amount of land that has been under water for many years, to a depth varying from an inch to 10 inches. Would the Minister tell us how the man who is asked to return what he owns is to do so if the land is under water? I have in mind quite a number of places where they have that kind of lake, that has been formed during the last 10 years.
This Debate to-day has included references ranging from land to oil. I am sorry that the Bill only deals with the surface of the land, because the arguments used to-day, as to the relation between land and oil, were such as to show that, while the oil coming into this country has a direct bearing upon the value of the products from our land, the withholding of the land, and the withholding of minerals, has a bad effect upon agriculture in this country. The Minister to-day spoke as a Protectionist, but in the survey he suggests what is to take place, for instance, in the Highlands of
Scotland. What is to be said in the returns of a place like Loch Aline? What is to be returned as to what has been left by the owners after they have swept the people out of the country? What is Mr. Craig Sellar to return in reference to the ruin that he caused on the neighbouring estate of Fiunary, when he pulled down that wonderful old house, famous in its architecture from the name of Adams in Edinburgh, when he tore it down and sowed grass to try and hide every habitation that had been there? Under what heading is he to put in Fiunary, where to-day one can see the bracken overtaking the site of the homes of the men who were sent forth, and whose houses were buried under the soil? Under what heading will Mr. Craig Sellar return the depletion in the Black and White Glens at the head of Loch Aline? Under what heading is he to show the ruined dwellings, and the bracken overtaking the natural habitations of men? To-day, when you visit that place, if you do not startle the deer you are startled by a gamekeeper.
Under what heading is to be returned all that tragedy that underlies our system of ownership of land to-day, and what is to be the good of this return, given to a Conservative party that holds, as it does to-day, that one man has a right to say that ho will keep his fellow-mortal off the soil, that he will keep his fellow-mortal unemployed, when he might by his own natural efforts express the divine purpose of man in his energy, physical and mental, applied to the soil to bring forth by the sweat of his brow that by which he may live? Under what heading is all this tragedy to be shown in these Returns? Of what value to you are your Returns going to be if you go on as you have been doing in the past keeping this under private enterprise—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the question of private enterprise is quite outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. HARDIE: As I said at the beginning, we have been travelling from land to oil. We have been travelling through a great deal of matter which has been brought in by other speakers. The survey that is proposed comes very late. I want an answer to the questions I have put: Under what head these subjects are to come? For instance, suppose you take the mining lands of Lanarkshire—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill is for agricultural matters, not mining. It seems to be used as a peg to cover all the affairs of the Commonwealth.

Mr. HARDIE: I have no desire to abuse the Rules of the House or to try to get in a point that is not in order. I know of agricultural land which has been destroyed by the subsidence of the surface due to mining. What has come over that land. I want to know whether there is any provision in this Bill for such returns. That is No. 1. No. 2 is this: You have land water-logged that is not due to subsidence but to lack of drainage. There is nothing in this Bill that shows that that is to be dealt with. It looks to me as if the idea of the Conservative party is to try to bring forward something that looks like a Measure for having this return made, but it is going to be a partial return. The characteristic type of Bill of the Conservative party is always to leave essentials out. We are going to have the most essential things left out. There are many men in Scotland I know who have to be content with inferior land, because they cannot get better. The right hon. Gentleman will not return that, because he will say it is not agricultural land. How are you going to deal with that?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the House has no reason to complain of spending an afternoon on this vital question, or of the Debate that has arisen out of the Bill. I believe we shall have more and more of such Debates as we have listened to to-day. The immediate connection between the desirability of intensifying our agriculture and dealing with the ever-growing army of the unemployed is one that is bound to be emphasised as the months go on and unemployment is not removed. We have had a series of really remarkable, speeches dealing directly with this point. The unemployed are there. The Minister of Agriculture has it in his power to help us to solve this problem. The collection of statistics is a step in the right direction, but I hope we will go a little bit further than this Bill provides for, and say that the special survey asked for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is gone on with. If we could have a special survey such as he mentioned, dealing with selected areas,
we should learn far more than we are likely to get by this general Bill. When he is making that special survey, I hope he will also make inquiries as to the rates levied upon various classes of property, and the rents charged to the tenants of different classes of land, because it seems to me that the party opposite have it in their power, if they only knew it, to do a tremendous amount towards helping to solve the unemployed problem without any legislation on the facts we put before them.
We had the other day an hon. and gallant Gentleman, an ideal landlord, anxious to do the best for his tenants, and anxious to produce the most from his land. He explained that he was letting land to large farmers at £1 an acre, and to allotment holders at £6 an acre. It is just the allotments that we want to introduce to-day. We know how many miners are suffering from short time and unemployment. If I were dictator of this country, I would secure for every out-of-work collier a piece of land which ho might cultivate, even if it were only a couple of rods, so that he would have something to spend his time on when he is out of work. That, supplemented by the Unemployment Insurance, would not only keep him fit but make him a man, instead of sinking down into the welter of the unemployables. That is partly within the power of the party opposite without this Bill.
This Bill will give us statistics of what is being cultivated, but if we can get the further special inquiries in special districts, we may find what are the real obstacles in the way of getting work for the unemployed on the land of their own country, so that they may produce something for themselves, and have some honest productive work to do. We are now passing through a time of crisis as serious as during the War. The landlords of the country, without waiting for the Government, made great sacrifices to help the situation in the early years of the War when food cultivation had to be undertaken at all costs. Will they not try to meet the same situation now in the same way by allowing these unemployed men and women to get land, with security of tenure, which they can work on instead of being in a queue outside the Employment Exchange, or hanging round the street corners.
The problem that we are discussing, and the problem of unemployment are intimately associated, and it is only when we realise that that we shall find the possibility of improving matters and reducing the hopeless unemployment of the present day. Therefore, I hope, before this most interesting and illuminating Debate closes, we shall have some words from the Minister of Agriculture upon this question. How far can we, outside this Measure, pursue inquiries which will enable a man who wants work to get at the raw material which he must have if he is to start work? Will he make inquiries to see whether the barrier put in the way of that man shall be reduced, and instead of being charged £6 an acre for allotments, that he shall get them at 10s. an acre, and instead of 9d. a rod, 1d. a rod, so that we can have a chance of producing food, perhaps not on such a scale as was outlined by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Wright), so that we may start training our people and getting them accustomed to working on the land and producing food?
I think the time we have spent to-day on the Bill has been by no means wasted. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) hit the nail on the head, when he showed the intimate connection between the problem we are discussing and the unemployment problem. Speech after speech from these benches has emphasised that point, and it would be a tragedy if the Debate closed now without any sort of intimation from the Government as to the attitude they propose to take up on this great question. How far can this Measure be supplemented? How far can we get information as to the rates and information as to rents, as well as information as to the profits and proceeds? How far can we get even more important information as to whether small holdings can be made remunerative, as to whether they ought to be charged three or four times as much rent as the big farmer for an equal number of acres—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is really developing into a general economic discussion which cannot possibly be taken on a Bill of this kind.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am quite aware of that, Sir, and I do not propose to apply any argument to any of these points I have raised. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman, following up the request made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon, to have these special inquiries so that the information may be available for Members when these questions are more properly discussed at the proper time. We have not the facts and we have not the information. We must rely on the Government for providing that information. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to promise before we close this Debate that we shall have these small selected inquiries into these very important points and thereby provide the material which may gradually open people's eyes to the necessity of connecting unemployment and the land question together, realising that by these means we can do something to restore our country.

Mr. E. WOOD: I shall not attempt, indeed I think you, Sir, would scarcely allow me to follow in detail the rather wide field which has been covered in this Debate. If this Bill be half as successful in securing intensive production from the land as it has been successful in securing an intensive output of oratory, we shall have no cause in any way to be jealous of our success. The only observation I permit myself in regard to the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie) is that when he gives rein to his eloquence, and says that this is exactly the sort of Bill he would have expected a Conservative Government to introduce, for various reasons that he commended to our notice, the short answer is that it is the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Buxton) who sits on his own Front Bench. Therefore, I consider myself absolved from dealing in detail with the attack he launched on my head.
I now come to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) asked with regard to the question of the suggested survey. He recognises better than anyone what a very difficult question it is, and I am not going to say more than I said in answer to an earlier question. He himself recognises that it would not be fair to invite me to commit myself
further than I have done without much fuller opportunity for consideration, but I may tell him that between one and two months ago, when I began to look at this question from this angle, and when I came up against the question of the survey, and I began to plot out what that would take in time and in expense if satisfactorily done, my mind at once turned, as I think the mind of my predecessor had also turned, in the direction of exactly the suggestion the right hon. Gentleman has made, namely, that of trying to take sample bits such as we do when we buy a cheese over the counter, and then draw general deductions from the samples. I do not say more than that at the moment, but that will suffice to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he can rely upon it that that suggestion, which indeed had been present to my mind, will be practically considered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of rates and rent at the same time?

7.0 P.M.

Mr. WOOD: I am not going to attempt to commit myself now to any form or suggested schedule of inquiry. I can only say it will be my duty to have regard to what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has urged along with the various representations which have been made from all quarters of the House. My object is the same as theirs, to secure as much relevant, true, valuable information as it is possible on a reliable basis to obtain. I think I cannot say more than that, but I hope, if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are content to leave the matter there at this stage, that when we return after Easter I shall be in a position to answer any further questions if it be thought fit to put them to me.

Mr. MORRIS: There is one point I should like to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, and that is with regard to new offences created by this Bill, under which farmers who are on holdings of more than one acre will be called upon to make returns for the purpose of the Act when it is passed. That means, whatever the state of education of these farmers may be, if they make a mistake, and it may be an innocent mistake, the onus rests upon
them. These men are not good at making returns. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should change the form of the punishment and put the onus, as it usually is, on the prosecution to prove that it is falsely made, and not put the onus on the person making the return to prove that he is making it innocently. The onus should be on the prosecution to prove the charge they have laid, and not upon the farmer.

Orders of the Day — IMPORTATION OF PEDIGREE ANIMALS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Minister to allow importation of pedigree animals.)

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I beg to move in page 1, line 14, after the word "England" insert the words "or the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland."
I believe this to be entirely an omission in the drafting, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will recognise the society as being of equal importance to the farmers of Scotland as the Royal Agricultural Society is to England.

Mr. LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. WOOD: As my hon. Friend says, this is a drafting Amendment. There is one small further alteration I should like made which in no way affects the sense of it, and that is my hon. Friend should put the word "and" at the beginning instead of the word "or." If my hon. Friend is willing to accept that, it would not affect the sense of the Clause.
Amendment made to proposed Amendment: Leave out the word "or," and insert instead thereof the word "and."—[Mr. E. Wood.]

Proposed words, as amended, inserted in the Bill.

Orders of the Day — GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Principles on which questions of religious upbringing are to be decided.)

Where in any proceeding before any Court the religious upbringing of an infant is in question—

(1) The Court shall take into consideration and, other things being equal, give effect to any contract which may be proved to have been entered into by the father and mother before marriage as to the religion of any children of the marriage, unless the performance of the contract has since the marriage been expressly or impliedly waived by both parties thereto;
(2) If at the date of their marriage the father and mother professed the same religion the Court shall presume that the father and the mother entered into an implied contract that any children of the marriage should be brought up in that religion, and shall take into consideration and, other things being equal, give effect to such contract, unless the performance thereof has since the marriage been expressly or impliedly waived by both parties thereto.—[Mr. Hurst.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. GERALD HURST: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause is in no way antagonistic to the main principle of the Bill, but is intended to meet an impasse which the Bill undoubtedly produces. As the House probably knows, this Bill is not intended to legislate for the ordinary married couple, but only for cases where the husband and wife are on bad terms one with another, often where no fault is imputed either to husband or wife, but where they differ on the upbringing and education of the children. As the Bill now stands, in disputes of that sort all the Court is told to do is to regard the welfare of the infant without regard to the wishes of the father or the mother in priority to one another. This is an admirable first principle. But if the House would only consider for a moment, they would see that, in certain contingencies with which this amending Clause deals, it is impossible to decide questions which may arise upon first principles, and first principles alone. You may have a husband and a wife both of whom are
unexceptionable as far as character is concerned, both of whom take the greatest concern in the welfare of their children, but who differ in regard to the religion in which the children should be brought up.
Take the case of one or two children of very tender years. No tribunal in the world could have the audacity to say that this religion or that religion is more for the welfare of the child than the religion of the other parent concerned, so that the only test laid down in the Bill as it now stands is inapplicable in these circumstances. For that reason this Clause proposes to put forward two solutions to meet two possible contingencies. There are many cases where husbands and wives are of the same religion at the time of their marriage, and in some such cases contracts are entered into by the husband and wife before marriage that either a boy or a girl should be brought up in one faith or another. As the law has hitherto stood, the wishes of the husband with regard to very young children prevails. It has been held that these pre-marital contracts have no legal effect. That is a hardship to the wife, and it is in her interests that the Bill has been promoted and drafted, but in actual fact the Bill offers no solution to that problem, because it is laid down that the only test by which the Court is to decide between the wishes of the father and mother is the test of the well-being of the child. The new Clause proposes in such cases that the contract agreement, or arrangement previously entered into between the spouses should be taken into consideration by the Court as to the future religion of the child.
The second Sub-section seems to me to be of very vital concern in unhappy marriages where these differences arise. There are many cases where husband and wife have professed the same religion at the time that they were married, and afterwards one of them has been converted to another religion. Difficulty must arise in such circumstances, and it is a very great hardship that, where the husband has been converted, the young children have been taken over with him against the wishes of the wife and against the understanding between the spouses originally. As I said when this Bill came on for Second Reading, I personally have known cases of this kind. I was concerned in a case where there
were three children of very tender years. The husband and wife had been Anglicans at the time of marriage, but the husband became a Roman Catholic after marriage, and the children consequently had to become Roman Catholics also. That was a very great hardship to the wife, and I remember her saying to me after the case had been heard that there should be a new Guardianship Bill, by which she should be given a better right than she had under the present law. The Bill does not cure that defect. The Bill simply throws the Court back upon first principles of State policy, and it does not enable it to decide in a contingency of this sort. Take the case I have been giving to the House—the case of two spouses who professed the same belief at the time of marriage and who quarrel as to the religion of the child. The Court looks at the well-being of the child. No Court in the world is going to say that it is better for the child to be brought up in religion "A" than in religion "B." It seems to me to be only justice that the Court ought to take into consideration the fact that at the time of marriage the husband and wife professed the same religion, and the Court in giving a decision, all other things being equal, should give effect to that.
My Clause is not moved from any denominational standpoint, but from a legal standpoint. It is backed by hon. Members who profess various religions. It is not in the least a denominational Amendment nor moved in the interests of any denomination. No doubt it will ultimately serve the interests of religion, but it is simply brought forward in order to make the Bill deal with the facts given in this Amendment and with a contingency which may clearly arise when differences of opinion between husband and wife occur. I hope the hon. Gentleman who is going to answer for the Government on this question is not going to say it is an agreed Bill, and, therefore, cannot be open to controversy. It is ridiculous to call it an agreed Bill. The mere fact that negotiations have taken place between various societies and representatives of the Home Office does not make it an agreed Bill at all. Surely it is the duty of the House of Commons, before it passes a Bill which professes to be based on first principles, which may be very admirable, to consider how in the
actual working of the provisions of the Bill effect can be given to its main principles. The provisions under this Bill are not going to be dealt with exclusively before experienced Judges of the High Court; they are going also to County Court Judges and stipendiary magistrates and even before Police Courts. Surely it is necessary, therefore, that an attempt should be made to meet the very common eventualities with which this Amendment deals. I am not laying very great stress on the form of words used, but I hope the Government and the House will see their way to bring this about and see that we do not pass into law Measures based on first principles only and which do not really meet the conditions of everyday life.

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I agree with the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment that certain defects will arise, necessarily, in the administration of this Act, but I do not think that the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member has moved is going to make the matter in the least easier. I think the Bill as drafted does give to the Court a very proper and reasonable discretion to deal with the whole question of the upbringing of the child, and among other things there will have to be considered this question of religious difference between the parents if that should, unfortunately, arise. The Amendment takes away from the Court its discretion. It says that the Court shall take into consideration this particular matter and give effect to a contract which may be proved to have been entered into. The whole object of this legislation is elasticity in dealing with particular cases, and you are going to apply a rigid rule. You are going to have an investigation as to whether a pre-nuptial arrangement was or was not, in law, a proper one, and enforceable in law. I think such an agreement would not be enforceable as a legal contract.
You may have litigation as to whether it is or is not a contract in law that a particular child shall have a particular religion. Having put that burden upon the Court, the Amendment then goes on to say "other things being equal." Therefore, having first compelled the
Court to consider whether there be a contract or not, yet fetter the Court's discretion, and really destroy everything that you yourselves have set up, by saying "other things being equal." I do not know what the phrase "other things being equal" really means. The Bill says that in any proceeding before the Court for the custody or upbringing of a child the welfare of the child shall be considered. One question which will weigh with the Court will be, which is the better parent to be left with the custody of the child, quite apart from the question of religious denomination. Complication would arise where the Court decided that the mother was the better parent in the interest of the child, and the mother was ordered to bring up the child in the religion of the father, which differed from that of the mother. That would make the whole thing absolutely unworkable. The mother may be the better parent, yet because there may have been a pre-nuptial contract, and they may have agreed that the child shall be brought up in the religion of the father, the supporters of the Amen d-merit would have instructions given from the Court to the mother to bring up the child, possibly in a religion in which she did not believe. It is an impossible obligation to put upon the parent in such a case.

Mr. HURST: It is an everyday occurrence in the Court to direct a parent to bring up a child in the faith of the other parent, even though the other parent does not profess the same religious faith as the parent who is left with the custody of the child.

Sir H. SLESSER: That is so, and so long as you leave discretion with the Court to deal with the case on its merits, I agree. That is what this Bill does. What I am objecting to is that you put a fetter on the discretion of the Court, and you say, in effect, "You shall construe a certain contract as having taken place and shall take that into consideration." The Court is to presume that the father and the mother did this or did that, and so forth. It is much better and much safer to leave the matter as it is in the Bill.
The hon. and learned Member has spoken with some degree of warmth as to the fact that this Bill is an agreed Bill between many persons, and agreed by this
House. We have had a Second Reading of the Bill, and the Bill has been to a Committee. This particular proposal was never raised in Committee. The Bill went through Committee without amendment. Whether it be agreed outside this House or not, I say that there has been agreement in this House. After passing Second Reading, and passing through Committee without Amendment, it comes here on Report, and an Amendment is now proposed which I believe would very seriously jeopardise the chance of the Bill becoming law this year. The hon. and learned Member himself says that he is not wedded to the words in the Amendment. The whole question is that of devising exact words. The hon. and learned Member half hinted that the words of the Amendment did not carry out his intention. I suggest that we should leave the matter elastic as it is in the Bill, and if hardship or difficulty arises in the operation of the Act we could have amending legislation. But to begin by putting in words the effect of which nobody fully understands, and at this stage, would be most seriously to prejudice the chance of the Bill becoming law. I hope the Government will ask the House to allow the Bill to go through in the form agreed upon on Second Reading and in Committee.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): My hon. and learned Friend, in moving the Amendment, expressed the hope that the argument would not be used that certain Amendments were controversial. I do not in the least want to use any argument that may be unfair, but I am very anxious that this Bill should become law at an early date. Although my hon. and learned Friend objected to the use of the word "agreed," this Bill is really an agreed Bill, or it was an agreed Bill—

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the hon. Member say that three months was agreed to? It was never agreed to.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Noble Lady has referred to the one matter that was in dispute in Committee upstairs.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: The hon. Member says this is an agreed Bill. Some of us profoundly distrust the Bill, and think that it will unwarrantably interfere with the sacred duties of parents. He must not therefore presume that all of us are agreed.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I did not mean that. When the late Government was in office a conference was held between the promoters of the Bill, the Home Office and various representatives of the big women's societies, and they came to the conclusion that this form of Bill would have the best chance of passing through Parliament. They were agreed not to press various questions that they wanted to see in the Bill, in order that there should be a more or less noncontroversial and agreed Bill which might become law at the earliest possible moment. I agree that there are a great many people who want this thing or the other thing inserted. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) probably would like to see a good many safeguards inserted.

Sir H. CRAIK: I dislike the Bill. It now appears that those who support the Bill are fundamentally divided on its crucial points and its whole structure. This proposed Clause touches a vital point, and they are divided upon it.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If we get away from the point we shall not see this Bill passed into law at all. We must have give and take. We have here a compromise, and as far as I can see it is the best kind of compromise that has appeared up to now. I am very anxious, if possible, to get this Bill and the Bill which follows it before 8.15 to-night. I hope I am not going to be unreasonable in regard to Amendments. There are one or two Amendments which I hope to accept. If we can get the Bills by 8.15, we shall have the advantage of the House of Lords considering them, and they will be passed into law at a very early date.
My objection to this Amendment is that the Bill laid down a principle that in any matter that comes before the Court the welfare of the child shall be the principal and paramount consideration. If you put an additional consideration into the Bill, there is no reason why you should not put other considerations into the Bill. In fact, there would be every reason to put other considerations into the Bill. I am afraid that if we put an Amendment like this into the Bill, the Court will imagine that Parliament has laid special stress upon the religious question, and they will go out of their way to take that
into consideration before any other consideration, outside the welfare of the child. We lay down the general principle in the Bill that the welfare of the child is to be the paramount consideration. My hon. and learned Friend was not right when he said that that was the only consideration. If he will look at the remaining part of the Clause he will see that there are other general considerations which have to be taken into account. If for the sake of the welfare of the child the Court has to take into consideration the religious question, they will do so.
I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment. The Bill would have very little chance of getting through if the Amendment were accepted. There are some Amendments, including one which the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) is going to propose, which I hope to be able to accept, and in view of that, I trust that my hon. and learned Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I have intervened because of the gross heresy which has been perpetrated from both front benches. It is the sort of heresy which one expected when the system of Standing Committees was set up. It is the sort of heresy which we were informed at the time would never be suggested in this House. My hon. Friend the, Under-Secretary tells us that this is an agreed Bill, and the hon. and learned Member the late Solicitor-General has made a similar statement. I protest as strongly as I can against that suggestion. Are we Members of Parliament to come down here and not to use our intellect as to whether an Amendment is important or not, simply to carry out what has been done on Second Reading?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: And in Committee.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Member is making it worse. A Committee of which I was not a Member. I said at the time that Standing Committees were set up, that we should be told afterwards on the Report stage, "You have nothing to do with it, because you were not on the Committee." I do not take an interest one way or the other in this Amendment, but I do protest against the suggestion that this House is going to give up its rights to any Committee, or that it will surrender its rights to any
Home Office officials or to any members of certain societies. I have not the slightest confidence in either body. It will be an evil day for the House of Commons if we are going to give up our rights, not simply to the extent that we are being forced to give them up, but in the way that is now suggested, that we are not to discuss an Amendment, and that we are not to exercise our own common-sense by giving a, vote upon it, because there has been a so-called agreement between Home Office officials and women's societies, who at Election times issue pamphlets and tell us what they think about us in such plain and unmistakable terms.
Do let us remember that the House of Commons is still a deliberative assembly. If we pass or reject this Amendment, every Member who votes does so on his own responsibility, and he cannot shirk his responsibility by saying that it is an agreed Measure. I cannot readily form a decision upon the merits of the question raised by the Amendment. On the whole I think the Amendment would probably increase an already difficult position. The House is going to leave to the determination of a registrar of a County Court or of a County Court Judge the question as to how a child is to be brought up, and he is to have full jurisdiction and to say in what religion it is to be brought up. I do not think it makes much difference whether or not you put in a restriction; but possibly it would be the best thing to let the Bill go through as it is.
I do hope, however, that we are not going to be told anything more about agreed legislation. There are some things—if I were speaking as a lawyer I might take, possibly, a different view—which are more important than rapidity of legislation. If you are trying to get through legislation by a particular time you confine it to people who happen to be in agreement about the Bill, and you lose a great deal of common-sense which ought to be exercised in the discussion of legislation. We are here because we represent various classes, and we are entitled to express our opinions freely on these legislative proposals. If you pass legislation rapidly it will bring a certain amount of grist to the mill of the
lawyers, but I hope that the House will consider the questions carefully before they either pass or reject these Amendments.

Mr. CUNLIFFE: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that a great deal too much has been made of the argument that the Bill is an agreed Bill. When you talk about agreement you want to know between whom it is agreed. I suggest that there can be no really agreed Bill unless it has been agreed to by all parties in this House, or by some persons entitled to speak on hehalf of all parties. If I thought that the Amendment would prejudice the passing of this Bill, I would not say a word in favour of it, but I suggest that the effect of the Amendment has been greatly exaggerated. It is common knowledge that one of the greatest difficulties which have to be dealt with in connection with the guardianship and custody of infants, is the question of the religion in which they are to be brought up. Speaking from some experience I should say that it is probably the greatest cause of applications to the Court. Therefore I should have thought that, when there is a question of whether children shall be brought up in a particular faith, that is one of those essential matters which the Court should be directed to consider when it is deciding upon the future of the child.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the Under-Secretary that this Bill has only one object, and that that object is the welfare of the child. There are two things which recommend this Bill to us. The first is that it asserts that the paramount consideration should be the welfare of the child. But the second is that it is no longer to be a presumption that the father has a greater claim to the guardianship and custody of the child than the mother. I have always said, in connection with this Bill, which I have endeavoured to support so far as lay in my modest power; that so long as you can get those two principles laid down clearly without any qualification it is unwise to overload the Bill with other matters which raise controversy There are other things which many of those who are promoting the Bill would like to have contained in it, and in this particular case I think that my hon. and learned Friend who has proposed this Amendment might
on the whole, after the discussion that has taken place, withdraw it on the ground that we ought not to do anything which would jeopardise the Bill.
I have no doubt from my experience that the Judges who have to deal with these questions of custody and maintenance, when they have to consider questions affecting the religious faith in which their wards have to be brought up, will take into consideration all the matters mentioned in the Amendment. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will agree that, as far as the Judges of the Chancery Division are concerned—and they are the Judges who have most to do with matters of this kind—they have always shown the greatest anxiety to do what they could for the welfare of the children with whom they have to deal, and there is no branch of their work which has caused them so much anxiety or to which they have devoted so much time and care and attention. I would, therefore, appeal to my hon. and learned Friend net to press his Amendment, not because I believe that the Amendment is wrong in principle but because I believe that the Judges who will have to administer this Act, if it becomes an Act, will do all that the Amendment suggests that they ought to do, and that the paramount consideration is that we ought not to do anything to jeopardise the Bill, either in this House or in another place.

Sir H. CRAIK: In reference to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), there is a further point on which I would raise an objection. The hon. Member who has just sat down discussed the Amendment very lightly, and appealed for its withdrawal, not because he thinks it a bad Amendment, but because very likely, after the discussion which has taken place, the Courts may follow the opinion of the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment. Above all, the one thing which we have to do, apart from any consideration as to whether this Amendment be wise or not, is, he says, not to do anything that will jeopardise the passing of the Bill. There are many of us on these benches, and some on the benches opposite, who think that the whole Bill root and branch is wrong, that it is contrary to human nature, and
interferes in a very dangerous way with the relations between husband and wife, and between parent and child. It is all very well to say that there is universal agreement, but is there universal agreement?
Hon. Members pretend to agree, and yet when they come to the most fundamental duty that can rest upon parents, those who support the Bill differ completely upon that point. I stated my objections to the Bill on the Second Reading, and I state my objections again. Hon. Members say that this is an agreed Bill, that nothing can stop the Bill, and that we ought above all things to say nothing which would interfere in the slightest way with the passage of the Bill: but when they come to discuss a most important principle of it show that they are miles apart. What can be more different than the attitude of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the attitude of the late Solicitor-General? They differ entirely on the whole point, and to say that they are agreed upon a Bill, when there is such a vital difference between them on a fundamental matter of principle, is something very much in the nature of hypocrisy.

Question, "That the Clause he read a Second time," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Amendment of 49 & 50 Vict. c. 27. s. 5 with respect to the custody and maintenance of infants.)

Viscountess ASTOR: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out the word "three" and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
I do not know whether the Under-Secretary is going to accept this Amendment, but, if he is going to do so, there is no necessity to waste time by speaking in support of it.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The object of the Amendment is merely to lengthen the period which has been put into the Bill from three months to six months. I would like to consider this question between now and the time when it reaches another place. I see certain objections to the proposal, but it is possible that they may be got over. If the Noble Lady
will accept that statement we may be able to put in a provision in another place. In the circumstances I should be glad if she would withdraw the Amendment.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am quite willing to leave the matter in that position. As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is an agreed Bill, and there is no necessity for discussing this point again. He knows what the arguments are. We think it better to have a little longer time on the Bill in order to keep the home together.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to utter a protest so far as Scotland is concerned in this matter. Seeing that this Bill to a large extent deals with Scotland, I think that at least we might have had the courtesy of the presence of a representative of the Scottish Office on the bench opposite, when we were dealing with the question of the guardianship of infants in Scotland. I believe that the Lord Advocate if he had been here would have been willing to give us the necessary explanation in regard to Scotland. I think that in future Measures of this kind, in which Scotland is concerned, we ought at least to be paid the courtesy of having someone here who is connected with the Scottish Office to explain questions with regard to Scotland. I hope that the Lord Advocate, who has a wide knowledge of the law in Scotland, and also of its administration, will even yet, before the passing of the Third Reading, give Scottish Members some idea as to the effect of this Measure on Scottish law.
Regarding the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member opposite, I had some sympathy with it. I have considerable experience in connection with pension cases of the question which constantly crops up as to what shall be the future religion of a child, and I am certain that I voice the views of large numbers of Members in this House when I say that if you could, in this Bill, devise some means of getting over future wrangles in Courts of law, or any other place, as to the religion in which a child shall be brought up, you would be performing a useful work. To me nothing
is more unedifying—it appears to me to be almost against the spirit of religion—than to see people going into Courts of law in matters of this kind. I have had such cases among constituents of mine, one of whom belonged to one religion, while another belonged to another religion, and there are no Members of Parliament who would not be anxious to do everything possible to avoid these bitter disputes, as to religion among his constituents. The question of religious teaching or training is to my mind one of the greatest importance, and it is hateful to think of the Courts as the fighting ground concerning the religion of a child. I have no wish to impede the progress of the Bill. Anything that tends to give women equality with men in the guardianship of children is a good and a. right step, but I wish that the Home Office had taken up some definite line on the question of the religious teaching of the children.

Orders of the Day — SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE) BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment to Section 5 of the principal Act.)

To the provisions which may be made by an Order or Orders under Section five of the principal Act shall be added:
(e) A provision that the property of the husband in the furniture (being furniture in the home in which the husband and wife have cohabited), or such part thereof as may be ordered, shall be transferred to and vested in the wife and that all the rights of the husband thereafter to such furniture or part thereof shall cease and determine."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I shall speak briefly, in deference to the appeal of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office not to delay the passage of the Bill. The principal Act,
in Section 5, gives certain optional powers to the Court and says that the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, to which any application under this Act is made, "may make an Order or Orders containing any or all of the following provisions." The Section then specifies (a), (b), (c), and (d). My proposal is to add another optional power to the Court. In Committee a new Clause of similar effect was moved, but in somewhat different language. That Clause, and that which I am proposing, had as their object that where the home is to be broken up, the Court should have the power to say that certain of the furniture shall go to the wife and certain of it to the husband. Of course, we do not suggest that the magistrate, in a kind of judgment of Solomon, can cut the furniture in half, but we do suggest that the magistrate can give directions that a certain proportion shall belong to the wife and a certain proportion to the husband, and the Court missionary, or some such person, will no doubt be deputed to carry out the arrangement in accordance with fair principles.
The reason for the proposal can be briefly stated. A woman who has got the necessary order for maintenance cannot set up a separate establishment unless she can get some furniture to put into her home. It has been suggested that there may be an order for as much as £2 for the wife and 10s. for each child, but the ordinary working man does not get anything like that: amount, and we are bound to admit that even such sums as are allotted under an order are often very intermittently paid. Therefore, it is practically impossible for the woman to buy furniture out of the very small amount which reaches her hands. That being so, the inability of the Court to award to her a portion of the furniture is a very serious handicap on her in carrying out the intentions of the Act. It is my information that many magistrates and their clerks would welcome such a provision as this. In Committee, when a similar Clause was brought forward, the Under-Secretary for the Home Department asked that it might be withdrawn so as to give him time to consider it. I understand that he has considered it, but that up to the moment he has not decided to bring forward himself an Amendment embodying any such proposal.
The difficulties suggested are these: First of all, that this is a new principle,
that the Court should have power to divide the furniture between husband and wife. In answer to that I say that the whole essence of this legislation is the power of the Court to divide what is really the income, between husband and wife, and that it is no new principle to suggest that the Court should divide the actual things they have had in common. In the second place, it is said that there is a difficulty in dealing with furniture, because it is often not the actual property of husband or wife. With regard to that the Clause proposes that the power should be optional and not mandatory, and if the difficulty suggested is so great that it cannot be overcome, there is no reason to think that the Court would seek to exercise the discretion that is given to it. I understand that the Court missionaries do make these divisions at the present time, when they get agreement between the parties to do so. It may be said that the Amendment is of a one-sided character and does not apply equally to men and women. If that objection should appear to be of importance, I have no doubt that other words could be inserted in another place so as to make the balance correct. I have not dealt with this question as fully as I would have liked to do, but I will not say more because I wish to save the time of the House.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: In view of the shortness of the time remaining, I do not propose to do more than formally second the Motion.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When in Standing Committee I gave the promise that has been mentioned, I did not do so in order to try to find arguments against the proposition of the Mover of this Amendment. I went back to the Horne Office, and ever since, I have been trying my best to find arguments in support of this proposal. I have failed, and I am sorry to say that we cannot accept this new Clause. The reason is that by this Amendment you are really laying down a new principle, in asking the Court to do what it thinks fair in regard to the division of property. You ask the magistrates to go entirely outside their jurisdiction and to say what they think ought to belong to the husband and what ought to belong to the wife. I am afraid that that objection is fatal to the Amendment

Mr. HARNEY: There are the rights of third parties.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Quite so; there are the rights of third parties. Bills of sale, the hire purchase system and so forth make this Amendment really impracticable. I have done my best to try to meet this Amendment, but it would involve such an alteration of principle that we cannot accept it, and I hope that the hon. Member will not press it.

Mr. BARKER: I know a case where a married couple quarrelled, and because the wife got a separation order the husband brought a furniture van to the house and took the whole of the furniture away so as to intimidate his wife and leave, her and the three children practically homeless. I have been asked by my constituents to support the insertion of this Clause in the Bill. Without it terrible powers will be left in the hands of a husband if he is the sole owner of the furniture. If he has misconducted himself, and his wife finds it necessary to get some legal protection from the Court, he can attempt to intimidate her in the way I have described. The case which I have mentioned caused quite a sensation in the neighbourhood in which I live. I am very sorry that the Minister cannot see his way to accept the Amendment. It has the sympathy of the magistrates throughout the country. It seems to me very unfortunate that there should be left in the hands of any husband the power to inflict such an outrage as I have described.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In deference to what has been said by the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The following new Clause stood on the Order Paper in the name of Viscountess Astor:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment to Section 5 of the principal Act.)

To the provisions which may be made by an Order or Orders under Section five of the principal Act shall be added:
(f) A provision declaring the person in whose favour the Order is made to be the tenant of the premises where both husband and wife have heretofore resided (which provision while in
force shall make it lawful to exclude therefrom that person's husband or wife, as the case may be).

Provided—

(1) that no such provision shall be made without the consent of the landlord notified in writing to the Court;
(2) that nothing herein contained shall affect the landlord's right upon any lawful ground to recover possession of his premises from the person declared by the Court to be his tenant.

Viscountess ASTOR: I suppose, in view of what has been said, that I shall nave to drop this new Clause, but I cannot do so without a protest. This Bill is supposed to help a woman, and we are here dealing only with bad husbands, with husbands who have had to be dealt with by the Court. I know the difficulty is with the Home Office and some of the officials there. They are always frightened. It is no good giving women maintenance unless they have furniture in the home.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendments of principal Act as to grounds on which orders may be made.)

Mr. HARNEY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, to leave out the words, "the children of the marriage," and to insert instead thereof the words, "her children."

Mr. BASIL PETO: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am willing to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, in page 1, line 24, at the end, to insert the words
(c) that adultery has been committed.
I move this Amendment on behalf of a considerable section of the community who consider that the greatest cruelty which could be inflicted upon a woman would be for this offence to be committed. It is not provided for in the Bill. I know that it was put forward in Committee, and I understand that the only objection of the Home Secretary then was that the Bill was an agreed Bill and that this Amendment, if inserted, might wreck the chances of the Bill's passage into law. I do not want to wreck the Bill, but on behalf of this very considerable section of the community I must move the Amendment.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As has been indicated, this is a controversial Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member will not press it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. BASIL PETO: I beg to move, in page 1, line 24, at the end, to insert the words
(c) that her husband is suffering from venereal disease and insists on cohabiting.
8.0 P.M.
I wish to press this Amendment. We are in this Clause inserting certain provisions which constitute a new ground of cruelty. Clearly, what is being considered in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) is cruelty to the wife. I hold that in the fresh paragraph I wish to insert the question of the cruelty to the wife is obvious. In the case of this terrible scourge we have to consider the cruelty to future generations. I see before my mind's eye children who are maimed, with bodies distorted, blind, feeble-minded, and the rest. No doubt my hon. Friend is going to refer to the case of Foster v. Foster, and I may be told that there has already been a decision in the Law Courts covering such a case as that with which I seek to deal here. It is not a question of merely infecting the wife, although that alone has been held to constitute cruelty, and if that be so, what is the objection to putting in this provision to prevent this most serious cruelty to present and future generations and to have it clearly in this Bill? This House should abandon all prudery and realise that this disease is the most terrible scourge from which the country is suffering, and is equal in its effects, if not worse than cancer or tuberculosis. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think in the Committee stage I said that the suggestion of my hon. Friend was already covered. Since then we have looked into the matter very carefully, and we are still of opinion that that is the case. I quite agree that it is a most important thing that it should be covered, but our advice is that the Act of 1895 covers the
point and that no further reference in this Bill is necessary. May I say, however, that this Bill is going to another place where there are a great many expert and learned lawyers. This point will probably come up, and if in their opinion the case raised by my hon. Friend is not covered, then we will see to it that something is put in the Bill. May I ask him to leave the matter open in that way.

Mr. B. PETO: I would be pleased to adopt the course suggested by my hon. Friend, but I make an appeal that we should deal with this question directly by legislation, and not by references compelling us to hunt in some ether Act for something which is applicable to this matter. I cannot myself see any reason: why the words I propose should not be inserted in this Bill to make the matter perfectly clear.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: I am rather surprised that the Under-Secretary has not accepted this Amendment. This is a matter which is being considered by lawyers, and I think in the present circumstances we should endeavour to get rid of all doubt. If the matter is not clear to the Home Office, who have expert advice on which to rely, and who can consult the Law Officers of the Crown, why should it be left any longer in doubt? I would ask my hon Friend to agree to the insertion of those words.

Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: May I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment, because if we have a Division now it may seriously interfere with the progress of the Measure. I think I have made my position clear. I have pledged myself and the Home Secretary that if there is any doubt whatever as to the point not being covered steps will be taken to cover it.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, lines 9 and 10, leave out the words "the children of the marriage" and insert "his children."—[Mr. Harney.]

The following Amendment stood en the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HARNEY:

In page 2, line 14, at the end, to insert the words
and any such Order shall cease to have effect if for a period of three months after it is made the married woman continues to reside with her husband,

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. and learned Member will not proceed with this Amendment now?

Mr. HARNEY: I understand the same principle applies. Of course, you will consider whether you will make it three or six. I am quite satisfied.
The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Viscountess Astor:
In page 2, line 14, at the end, insert the words
and any such Order shall cease to have effect if for a period of six months after it is made the married woman continues to reside with her husband.

Viscountess ASTOR: This Amendment is similar to the previous one except as to period. The only question is that you accepted it when you were dealing with an inconsiderate husband, and here you are dealing with a husband who is more considerate.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That was a question on another Bill which has been dealt with.

CLAUSE 2—(Amendment of Section 7 of principal Act.)

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 2, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words
such payments as in the opinion of the Court he was able,
and to insert instead thereof the words
any payments which he was required 
This is intended to deal with a case in which the man could plead that he was not able to serd the money and the woman might be driven desperate because the money did not come for herself and her children, and might thereby lose her rights for ever afterwards. The Amendment which I suggest was actually in the original Rill, and I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to accept it on the Present occasion.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment. If the husband does his best to support the wife, I think you have gone as far as you ought to go. The man might be thrown out of work or the payments might lapse from some other cause of that kind, and
I do not think we ought to penalise the husband if he did not pay owing, possibly, to the fact that he was ill or crippled or thrown out of work. I think the hon. Member will see that on reconsideration, and perhaps she has forgotten that although it was in the original Bill this Amendment was turned clown by the House.

Miss WILKINSON: Of course, we cannot discuss the matter properly, as there is not time to go into all the reasons in support of the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 32, after the word "children," to insert the words "of the marriage."—[Mr. Locker-Lampson.]

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out the word "ten" and to insert the word "twenty."
This, again, is a complicated matter, and it would require a long time to explain the purpose of and the reasons for this Amendment, but if we are going to have it dealt with in the same way as the last one, rather than go into the matter I should prefer to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will explain why we cannot accept it.

Miss WILKINSON: I will formally move, but I am sorry that we cannot discuss it at greater length.

Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The reason against this Amendment is that by it you are doubling the sum payable to tin children and it seems to me that if 10s. is sufficient, when the wife receives 40s., it should be sufficient for the children when the rest of the order is discharged and she is not receiving anything for herself. The children are still, so to speak, on the same plane and I do not think there is any reason why you should double the amount.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 36, after the word "each," insert the word "such."—[Mr. Locker-Lampson.]

In page 2, line 39, at the end insert the words:
Provided further that if any married woman upon whose application an Order shall have been made under this Act or the principal Act, or either of them, shall voluntarily resume cohabitation with her husband, such Order shall be deemed to be discharged from the date of such cohabitation and the last sentence of Section seven of the principal Act so far as it relates to proof of resumption of cohabitation is hereby repealed. A discharge of such an Order shall not operate so as to confer any right in the husband to recover any moneys paid or purporting to be paid under such Order either before or after such discharge."—[Miss Wilkinson.]

Orders of the Day — FORMER ENEMY ALIENS (DISABILITY REMOVAL) BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — AIR MINISTRY (CROYDON AERO DROME EXTENSION) (recommitted) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE [SALARY, ETC.].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the salary and pension of one additional Judge of the High Court who may be appointed under any Act of the present Session.

Orders of the Day — SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: I beg to move,
That, in view of the grave intellectual and social wastage caused by the fact that the great majority of children leaving elementary schools fail to obtain further education of any kind, a wastage aggravated by the present state of unemployment, and in view of the declaration of the Departmental Committee on scholarships and free places that 75 per cent. of the children leaving elementary schools are intellectually qualified to profit by full-time education up to the age of 16, this House is of opinion that local education authorities should be called upon to prepare schemes by which within a reasonable period adequate provision may be made for secondary or some form of full-time post-primary education for all children up to the age of 16, for a progressive increase in the percentage of free places maintained in grant-aided secondary schools, and for the development of maintenance allowances on such a scale that no children may be debarred from higher education by the poverty of their parents.
Owing to the good fortune of the ballot, I have the honour and the pleasure of moving this Resolution, and I desire to do so as briefly as I possibly can, so as to give other hon. Members a chance to say something on this very important matter. Let me say that what I have to say will be more from the practical point of view of an administrator and that I will leave it to hon. Members who are better able than I am to deal with the purely educational questions arising. That there is an intellectual wastage is, I think, undoubted, because of the fact that so many of our children who leave school at the age of 14 have no further facilities whatever offered them, coupled with the fact that so many of them are running the streets and cannot find any work to do, and even those who do find work are very often placed in this position, that they are put to do work that ought to be done by their fathers, who are in consequence walking the streets seeking work, all to the detriment of the nation. This is all the more deplorable when we remember that on the findings of a Departmental Committee which sat some time ago, of which I had the honour of being a member, together with the present Minister of Education, we came to the definite conclusion that at least 66⅔ per cent., if not 75 per cent., would benefit by further education, but despite that fact, since that date little or nothing has
been done to carry out the intentions of that Committee. I entirely agree with the findings of that Committee, and trust that from to-night onward some greater effort will be made to put into operation its findings.
In proof of what I am saying, may I be permitted to say that in our elementary schools to-day very good work is being done with children between the ages of five and eleven years? The teachers in our elementary schools are sparing no activity and are unsparingly giving themselves to these children, in a very different manner from that which obtained in the elementary schools when I myself, nearly 55 years ago, was in one of them. Little do we see for it, and more encouragement should be given to these spirited men and women, to whom I offer my meed of praise for the work that they are doing. I cannot imagine any body of men or women who would be more pained than they to know that all the good work they have done goes to waste because of the failure of the Board of Education and the local education authorities to do anything further. What is happening is this: I wish to point out that in cur elementary schools, while everything is alright between the ages of five and eleven, after eleven years of age is reached comes the wastage for the very bright boy or even the ordinary boy or girl. After the first year in the highest class very little further education can be given under present circumstances, consequent upon the fact that there are children of at least three different years to be taught in the one class. At eleven years of age they find themselves in standard VII, and there they have to remain for three years, and they must, of necessity, because of the position created by the Board of Education, have exactly the same tuition from eleven to fourteen years of age. A boy arrives in Standard VII for the first year and is offered first-year tuition, but the next year some other boys and girls of eleven come up, and the same education and the same teaching and the same everything are meted out again to the boy in his second year because of the boys and girls of the first year who have come to join him, and that is happening in our elementary schools day after day.
Let me give an example. I know a boy now who is eight years of age and is in
Standard V. In less than two years he will be in Standard VII, and he will do his first year, and then will go on as I have indicated, without any chance of further tuition. There he is, with his bright brains wasted because of the lack of accommodation for secondary school cases. May I plead with the Minister of Education to think of these boys and girls? My heart goes out to the boy or girl of 11 whose parents are so poor that no further education, even if it were there, can be offered to them. I want to plead with my Noble Friend that it is our business here in this House to tell the local education authorities that they cannot afford to lose these brains, that the country needs them, and that it must have them, from whatever source they may come. Under such circumstances individual attention is, of course, impossible, for only too often the number in the class is about 50, and in some cases ever 50, and I hope I shall not be told that it is possible for a teacher to give individual attention, for everyone who has had anything at all to do with elementary education knows that it is a sheer impossibility.
In my own County of Durham we have in some of our schools what we know as higher tops, to which a teacher with a degree may be appointed, and for which a class-room is set apart and given some good equipment, so that a different class of teaching may be given to the children there. We have attempted to give to these children of 11 years of age exactly the teaching that they would get in a secondary school at the same age, and the results have been more than gratifying. Take last year. Some 40 or 50 of these children took the Oxford examinations, senior and junior, and many of them passed and took honours, but the thing to remember is that all this ceases at 14 years of age. That sort of thing shows, once again, where the great wastage takes place, because, after all, these children have sat for an examination for a free place in a secondary school, could not have it, and then, despite the fact that they have been turned down because of lack of accommodation, have succeeded in doing in the elementary schools very good work. That again proves that wastage is taking place because of the lack of further education, and I tell the House in no measured terms that to end this the Board of Education
and the local education authorities ought to come in with higher and secondary education for all children over 11 years of age. That is a strong order, but it is the only way of meeting this question.
I have here some figures which, I think, prove what I am saying. The number of places at present provided, as we all know, is wholly inadequate, and there is not the opportunity for development that we want. Let me give some of the figures I have taken from the White Paper that was issued by the Board some few weeks ago. First of all, take the Borough of Wallasey, which makes provision in secondary schools for 21 per thousand of its population. That is the very best borough we have. That is followed by Bradford, with 20.4. At the other end, Rochdale has only four per thousand; Smethwick, 4.3; West Ham, 4.5; East Ham, 5.1; Sunderland, 5.1; and Gateshead, 5.3 Are we, as the custodians of the people's interests in this matter, satisfied with that state of things? Taking the counties, it is pretty much the same thing, though, I believe, on the whole, a shade better, but between the top and the bottom a shade worse. In the Soke of Peterborough the figure is 18.2; Bedford, 14.2; Shropshire, 12.5; Middlesex, 12. At the other end, the first I come to is the Isle of Scilly, 1.7; then, East Sussex, 4.8; the Isle of Wight 5.1; Durham, 6.3. In Durham, thanks to a Labour party being in power, a year ago it was raised by 1 per cent., the figure having been 5.3 prior to the Labour party coming into power. So that at least we can say we did something for secondary education in Durham. In Norfolk, the figure is 6.5; Lindsey, 6.8; Lincoln, 6.8. The figures for the country are, I think, alarming. For 1921, the figure was 8.8; 1922, 9.2; and 1923, 9.1. Wales, I am glad to say to my Welsh Friends, is much better. Wales, in 1921, had 10.6; in 1922, 11.5; and in 1923, 11.5.
The figures I have given, I am sure, show that the children have not a chance of being educated. I do not accept elementary education so-called as education; it is merely the foundation on which an education can be built. Where the population is most dense, the least number of children receive secondary education. Let me compare the purely agricultural county of Westmorland with my own
county of Durham. We find that Westmorland can afford to have 11.5 per 1,000 of its population in secondary schools, as against Durham's 6.3, which we raised from 5.3. May I mention, also, this great City of London? According to a circular issued by the London County Council quite recently, we find the same circumstances surrounding the position, namely, that where poverty is highest, education is worst. The figures for secondary education are, in Shoreditch, 1.3; and Bethnal Green, 2.2, as against 14.5 in Hampstead and 12.6 in Stoke Newington, showing that there is the same tendency to keep back poor areas, so as to give better facilities to those more able to provide them for themselves.
Again I am going to refer to my own county, about which I know most. I do not take 1921, when the position was rather different, but I take the last three years. We had leaving our elementary schools in 1922, 13,994 children, out of whom 1,217 found their way into secondary schools. In 1923, the figures were 16,643 and 1,131. In 1924, the numbers were 16,246 and 1,192. In the elementary schools in those years the numbers were 53,178 in 1922, 51,736 in 1923, and 50,678 in 1924. In Division I and Division II secondary schools we had 5,578, 5,722 and 5,840, respectively. We have in Durham an order that all children over 11 years shall be examined with a view to the hest being selected for free places in our secondary schools, and this is how it has worked out in the last three years. In 1922, 14,277 children were examined at Part I of the admission examination, and 6,666 were brought to a further examination to decide which should have an opportunity of getting to the secondary schools. Of these, 3,299 were interviewed, and we found places for 695. That is to say, out of 14,277 children, we finally found we could place 695 children. I say to my hon. Friends opposite that to me it is most undesirable that when we have selected our pupils for the free places, the fee-paying pupils, whose parents are residents, get the preference. Many of the parents do not allow their children to go forward, not because they do not want them to receive education, but because they cannot afford it. That, then, is the position that we are in Durham. In 1922 we took a census of the people in this respect, and only two
out of a vast number of parents said they had no desire for further education for their children so that, I think, we may take it that the parents in Durham at least are unanimously in favour of secondary education.
We ought to re-organise our educational system so as to provide for our children going into the secondary schools. I have quoted what we are doing in Durham. We ask that the children of the workers should be educated so that they may take their fair share as citizens of this country. I do not ask more for the children of the poor than I would ask for the children of the well-to-do. I hope that I am pleading, and with some hope, that something will be done in this matter. An hon. Members opposite asked what we propose.
First of all, let me say that what is standing in the way is insufficient secondary school accommodation. May I offer a suggestion to my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education? In some of the larger urban areas we have sufficient accommodation, and a little to spare, for elementary education. One school might be well taken and reorganised on the basis we suggest. At present there is not sufficient variety in the types of education provided. We desire that every opportunity should be given to every child to get his chance. I know that by some people a secondary education is looked upon as the right rather of the well-to-do. It means at the end a black-coated job. I want that, idea dispelled, not only from the minds of the children, but from the minds of the parents. For I am convinced, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the better we educate the child, the better will it be able to take care of itself, not only generally, but in many of our dangerous occupations. From actual experience, and a long connection with mining—it is one of the most dangerous occupations which we have in this country—I say that the better educated men we have in our mines the less liability will there be to accidents. That has worked out in actual fact. I put it this way to my Noble. Friend that if, at least, we can reduce the accidents in mines, or in other industrial pursuits, then it follows that we have done a great thing. I want, therefore, more provision for secondary
education. I want to get on with the building of the necessary schools. I do not want the start to be put off for 10 years. I should like to see a considerable portion of our programme accomplished in that time, and I think it may be possible. Schemes that have been put forward by local authorities might go forward if helped by the Board of Education; some, at least, of the local education authorities would gladly get on with the work.
May I refer to a recent Circular issued by the Board of Education? Many people know that we of the Durham County Education Authority had agreed that our secondary education there should be entirely free. That was turned down. But we were sufficiently unanimous that even the Moderate majority on the council decided, with the Circular in their hands, that they were still willing for a free scheme, and the resolution that was passed stands on the books of the education authority of Durham to-day. We want more generous awards and maintenance grants by local education authorities.
The Education Act passed on the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) is all that is required if put into operation. No new Act is needed for many years. That Act, well applied and administered by any local education authority, will forward education in this country, and will be sufficient, I believe, for many years. I want the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education to adopt that Act—and before long! We want to give our boys and girls every opportunity to broaden their minds, and to see to it that they get a real chance to become worthy citizens of a great country. We want them to get that education that will fit them to play a worthy part in life, so that they will not get into blind-alley occupations, selling newspapers or matches, and ultimately being cast upon the human scrap heap. I want the future men and women of this country to have such an education that they can turn their hands to industrial pursuits as well as to those pursuits which are, so to speak, naturally associated with higher education. At the same time, those who are fitted for it should have their chance in the secondary schools, and the higher sources of education, so that if they are
able they may get their share of the higher posts—if their brains are equal to it. If we adopt such a system as I have endeavoured to outline in my poor, halting way, I believe that the wish of Members like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) may be attained, and that he will, as a matter of fact, get some of his £10,000 a year men coming from among the children of the workers of this country.

Mr. COVE: I beg to second the Motion.
This Resolution enunciates a very clear-cut principle and states the position of the Labour party on education in no unmistakable terms. That principle is just this, that the place for all our children up to the age of 16 is in our schools, and not in our factories or workshops. We say in this Resolution that neither the needs of particular industries or particular employers, nor the poverty of the parents, should prevent all our children having full opportunities for secondary education right up to the age of 16. We say that secondary education ought not to be regarded as a provision for the super-cultured or super-normal child, but ought to be the normal provision for the normal child of every home in this country. We say it is a wrong conception of education to think that the elementary school can fulfil the functions of education. We say it is wrong to expect the complete product from the elementary school, and that it would injure elementary education if you expect or try to get from it the complete product, the finished product, demanded by any employers or any industries. Elementary education is essentially a preparatory education, and ought to be organised with regard for the growing reeds of the child. In elementary schools we ought not to fit the child into the system, but fit the system for the child. There are some people, very sincere friends of education, who believe that the normal average child has not the capacity to benefit from secondary education. No less a distinguished educationist than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), in a Debate on the Education Estimates in July last, I believe it was, stated that opinion very clearly, as far as I understand it.

Mr. FISHER: May I remind the hon. Member that what I said was that it is not every child who would benefit from full-time secondary education. As a matter of fact, I made provision in my Bill that every child should have either full-time or part-time secondary education.

Mr. COVE: I am not going to quarrel with that. I was taking the expression used by the right hon. Gentleman in order that we might discuss it. On the 22nd July the right hon. Gentleman said this:
Perhaps we friends of education are somewhat too apt to exaggerate the intelligence of the human race. I was reading the other day some observations by an American psychologist with regard to the results of the intelligence tests for the American Army. It appears that 170,000 young men in the prime of life were submitted to these tests, with the somewhat distressing result that it is the opinion of American psychology that there are 45,000,000 people in the Union who will never reach a standard of intelligence higher than that of the normal child of 12 years of age."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1924; cols. 1168–69, Vol. 176.]

Mr. J. JONES: They ought to send some as Members over here.

Mr. COVE: That quotation expresses doubt as to the capacity of the normal child to be fitted to benefit from a course of full-time secondary education in our schools. I find that a number of people who believe in mental tests are of the same opinion. I myself have never believed in mental tests. I have never believed you can apply a foot-rule to the human intelligence. I have never believed that you could state at the age of 11 what mental age a child would attain at the age of 20. Mental tests also do not test capacity of character, do not test capacity for perseverance; they do not test character in any degree whatever. Therefore, I say, as far as I am concerned, I regard the application of mental tests to the capacity of children as thoroughly reactionary, thoroughly unscientific and unreliable in results. I find there is one gentleman amongst these people who apply these tests who is more optimistic than the others as to the results. A distinguished psychologist employed by the London County Council, Mr. Cyril Burt, in 1917 carried out a series of investigations into the capacities of 31,000 ordinary normal children in a
borough in London. He investigated the capacities of these children and found that out of that 31,000 children the level of attainment with 37 per cent. of them was on a level with their chronological age; in the ease of 25 per cent. it was one year in advance of their age; and in the ease of 6.4, more than one year in advance of their age. He also tested over 3,000 children from 10 to 11 years of age, and of these, 32 per cent. were judged to be normal and 36 per cent. were above the normal. That is to say, of these ordinary normal average children who go to our elementary schools, Mr. Cyril Burt, the distinguished psychologist of the London County Council, discovered that two-thirds to three-quarters were above the normal. Therefore, I say, the vast bulk of our children, the ordinary normal children, are quite capable of benefiting by secondary education.
I have been interested a lot in examinations, and as a result my post bag has been overloaded with tests of questions to put to certain persons. I have been applying some of these tests to Members of this House, tests that have been set to children of 11, 12, and 13 years of age, and I do not think that a single Member I have tested this afternoon with these, questions passed the examination. [HON. MEMBERS: "What party?"] All parties. As a matter of fact, I think I tried my Conservative friends first in the Library this afternoon. I would like to read to the House one or two of these questions to show the standard which is being demanded from our ordinary elementary school children in order that they may get into the higher secondary schools. The difficulties and the range of knowledge demanded is simply amazing. I will quote one or two instances, which I have not selected because of their particular hardship, but I have hundreds of them, and hon. Members must hear in mind that these are set for children varying from 11, 12, and 13 years of age. Here is a case I quote from Northampton:
1. Write as full an account as you can of one of the following: Stonehenge, The Canterbury Tales, The Great Fire of London.
2. What do you understand when you read the following words: Monastery, outlaw, republic, cathedral, cavalier, Parliament?
3. Write the following names in a column, putting them in the order in which the persons lived. Then tell what you know of any one of them who wrote books. Thomas a Becket, John Bunyan, Boadicea, Cardinal Wolsey, Charles Dickens, Columbus, Julius Caesar, Nelson, William the Conqueror, George Washington, Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth.

Mr. J. JONES: They ought to end up with Charlie Chaplin.

Mr. COVE: Here is another good one:
4. During the past year you have probably heard people talk about: A General Election; ballot box; Parliamentary candidates; Protection; Prime Minister; Capital Levy. Explain briefly and simply what you think these terms mean.
I do not see Free Trade in this list. Those are a few questions set at a Northamptonshire examination demanding a very wide knowledge from children of 11 12 and 13 years of age. I am sure that all the children who could pass that examination are children who would benefit by the extension of secondary education. Here is another example.
(a) Write an original story making use of the ideas suggested by the following outline:
Bull in a field—little girl in danger—distracted mother—stranger saves girl—who was the stranger?
(b) Write a short conversation between a spider and a fly.
Here is one relating to the knowledge of drama which is demanded.
(a) Imagine that you are dramatising Jack and the Beanstalk.'
Write out the scene which takes place in the widow's cottage when Jack returns from the market after selling the cow for a bag of beans.
Put in stage directions.
There is just one other on arithmetic, showing the standard demanded as to the range of knowledge and the imagination of these children:
A brass cylinder is sent from a foundry in a wooden rectangular box which measures internally 14X8X8 inches and weighs 4 lbs. The length of the cylinder is 14 inches, the radius of its base 4 inches, and its weight is 203.4 lbs. The space in the box not occupied by the cylinder is filled up with sand. Find the weight of the whole, the volume of the cylinder being π r2l, where r is the radios of the base, l the length, and π=22/7 (A cubic foot of sand weighs 110 lbs.).
9.0 P.M.
I venture to assert that a child who could answer a question like that ought to be
predestined, not for a secondary school course of education, but ought to be sent up to the University. I want to deal very briefly with education in relation to industry. Some people assert, and it was asserted very strongly the other day by Lord Banbury in another place, that it is a good thing to get children out of school as soon as possible, and it is claimed that this is better for the children and better for industry. I would like to ask, however, when you get them into industry where are the jobs? On this point it is difficult to get figures, and there are great differences of opinion as to the number of children who are unemployed, more particularly between the ages of 14 and 16. I have seen, however, the following estimates. In London it is stated that there are 14,000 children unemployed between the ages of 14 and 16. I have also seen the estimate, although I do not believe that the Government spokesman in another place accepted the figure, that there are 200,000 juveniles throughout the whole of this country unemployed. I notice from, a report of a discussion in the "Western Mail" of the same problem, in Newport, that there were about 30,000 children from 14 to 18 years of age unemployed in the town of Newport.
My point is that these children are being neglected in what is the most formative period of their lives just at a time when they are entering into roan-hood. That is the period when for the first time powerful dominating instincts appear, and. when the life force seems to be struggling to free itself. At this stage remarkable changes occur, and when these new instincts are formed you arrive at a period more than any other when you are actually forming the manhood of those particular children. There is no more hopeful and, at the same time, no more dangerous period in life, than the period of adolescence, and yet at this period wt find that thousands of our children are unemployed. They are in and out of industry, and you are teaching them the principle of living from hand to mouth, with no clear path to follow and no definite aim.
The other day I had the privilege, owing to the kindness of the Minister of Labour, of visiting some of the juvenile unemployment centres in London
where I talked to some of the children. They told me that they could get a job at the age of 14 or 15, but when they reached the age of 16 they got out of work, and the reason they gave for this was that at that age the masters had to pay unemployment insurance for them. I want here to pay my tribute even to the juvenile unemployment centres. They are undoubtedly saving in a number of cases that rapid depreciation of human life which would otherwise occur if it were not for the juvenile unemployment centre. I saw, for instance, some girls in one of the centres where tine teacher had got them to adopt a proper uniform, a sort of secondary school uniform that they have seen the secondary school children wear; and the very fact that they had that dress on seemed to lift them up and give them a greater idea of their own value, and to prevent that depreciation in their standard of living which otherwise would have gripped them.
Therefore, the juvenile unemployment centres are performing a useful function in helping to stave off that depreciation; but the juvenile unemployment centres, I want to say quite frankly, do not fill the bill. They are not enough, for the problem with which we are dealing goes deeper, and is more abiding, I think, than the mere problem of unemployment It is not only a question of the unskilled and blind-alley occupation; we have to ask ourselves, Can industry train and absorb its apprentices? Is it wise, is it economical, to give our children an apprenticeship to any particular trade? That is the definite question we have to ask ourselves. Recent reports that I have read throw considerable doubt upon the economy and wisdom of giving children, in many of our industries, a definite apprenticeship to a definite and particular trade.
I have been reading only to-day a very interesting Report of this kind with which I am sure the President of the Board of Education will be acquainted, and, if the House will bear with me, I should like to read a quotation from it, because I think it is exceedingly important. It is the Report of the Departmental Committee on Juvenile Education in Relation to Employment after the War, and this is what it says:
The range of employment open to juveniles is a wide one, and any general
statement of its conditions must be prefaced by the warning that these vary considerably in detail from industry to industry, from locality to locality, and even from business to business. At the top of the scale come the apprentices; at the bottom, many factory workers and others engaged in blind-alley occupations. Apprentices are employed, not for their immediate commercial utility, but in order to maintain or increase the supply of skilled workmen. These, in theory, get a training which is of a practical kind, and has the advantage of being acquired in an atmosphere of business, not of a school. The fact that the age of apprenticeship is in some areas nearer 16 than 15 years of age, unfortunately causes a considerable gap to intervene between the time when juveniles leave school and the time when they settle down to learn a trade. During this interval, they have nothing but more or less casual occupations to fall back upon, and, when they finally enter their industries, are in most cases less well equipped than when they left school two years before. Moreover, an apprenticeship does not of itself give a training which fits boys for modern industrial conditions. As a system of training it was developed when industry was stable, methodical; and regular, and it is not fully suited to an age when it is unstable, changing, and irregular. A boy undertakes to serve five or seven years in order to acquire a trade, but, after his skill has been laboriously obtained, it may at any moment be rendered entirely unnecessary by changes in the organisation of industry. What is required, in addition to manual dexterity, is industrial knowledge and intelligence which will enable him to adapt himself to changing industrial conditions. But such general adaptability apprenticeship of itself does not give.
That Report seems to emphasise the fact that, even so far as the technique of industry is concerned, what is wanted is a broad, generalised, liberal education that will give the child initiative, self-reliance, manual dexterity and adaptability—as broad and as liberal as it can possibly be made. That does not mean that it is to be merely a literary or bookish education. We have too long made the mistake of thinking of secondary education merely as literary and bookish education, but secondary education must be something far wider than that, something that is organised for a secondary status. It must include all the manual exercises that are necessary to carry on the great manual traditions of our industries in this country. Why do we emphasise secondary education? Why not central school education? Why not this type or the other type? I want to say quite
clearly that I am not condemning the work that has been done—magnificent work, under the conditions—in the great central schools of London and the provinces; but I want secondary education because it is far better to get a unified system. It is far better to simplify your administration.
It is not only that. Secondary education not only means status, but it also means far better physical conditions for our schools. I forget the exact figures, but I believe—the President will correct me if I am wrong—that the floor space and the amount of air available are nearly double in a secondary school what they are in an elementary school. The classes are much smaller; the teachers are better paid—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ah!"] Why not? I am not ashamed to ask for good pay. As regards playing fields, I do not think they are necessary for elementary schools, but they are necessary for secondary schools. We want all education, as far as possible, not to be regarded as literary; we want all education above the age of 11 to be on a secondary basis, with as great a variety of types as can possibly be obtained. I am not afraid of there being—in fact I even welcome—a bias, but it must not be introduced too early or over-emphasised, gradually leading the child on to its future occupation in life. Further, I want manual occupations to be associated with secondary education, running side by side with the arts and literature, in order to give in our secondary schools what I would term a secondary status to manual occupations themselves, dignifying labour in and through the status that is given to it in our schools. I want all these various kinds of occupations to be within the category of secondary education.
The Amendment differs very little, as far as I understand it, from the original Resolution. It differs, perhaps, in this respect, that, whereas we would emphasise getting the children into a secondary system, with gradual development until all our children over 11 are absorbed in secondary schools, the Amendment seems to have this underlying philosophy, that not all children are fit to profit by that education. There is a limitation in the Amendment. That limitation we on these benches entirely deny. If that limitation is true, if it is a limitation of unfitness,
we say that it does not merely apply to the working classes, but applies also to those who can go to Eton, Harrow and our other great schools. If that is to be the principle, it must be applied right through, to rich and poor, to those who can afford it and to those who take the benefit from our grant-aided and rate-aided secondary and municipal schools in this country. Therefore, what we seek in this Resolution is a wide variety of type, manual occupation freely entered into, relating the school activity gradually and increasingly to the needs of the wider sphere of life in citizenship and in industry. We want to dignify labour in and through bringing these children into the secondary schools and giving them a course which will fit them for citizenship, for workmanship and for the enjoyment of the art and literature of life, so that they may have a fuller and freer life as our citizens in this country.

Colonel BURTON: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House adheres to the policy laid down by the Prime Minister in October last, namely, the provision of sufficient secondary schools with an adequate number of free places, the provision of central schools to accommodate all those primary school pupils between the ages of 11 and 15 (16 where possible) who are not accommodated in the secondary schools, and facilities for transfer from central to secondary schools.
The Resolution has a very familiar ring about it—a ring which is familiar to all pious aspirations. It is rather peculiar to find such a ring at the moment when the Mover of the Resolution might, in all human probability, find himself in the wilderness in the shape of opposition for some considerable time, when he will be able to watch the working out of the Government plans which are now being brought to fruition. I do not know even that we might not towards the end of the evening find that the Minister will tell us that the Resolution after all is abortive, even as I know from a Sunday paper last week. I find that the Plymouth education authority, acting in conjunction with Other authorities of a similar nature, have propounded a scheme, and I should like to read one or two of the items which they put forward in it. The main features of this scheme, which has been put forward by a
series of education authorities who consider that perhaps after all we have advanced since the year 1870, are as follows: Re-classification of the schools into junior and senior schools, abolishing the present infant school departments altogether, or perhaps substituting for them nursery schools, making the age of 11 the dividing line between the two classes of school, providing two types of senior schools, one for children selected by examination or other test as specially fitted for a special curriculum, the other type for all other senior children, the course of education in the senior schools to be a four-year course—this involves raising the age to15—greater emphasis to be laid on practical work in the senior schools, and each school to have its own practical department, e.g., wood and metal working, etc., for boys and domestic teaching for girls, the present central schools to become secondary schools, for which the general selection will take place at the age of 11, but with provision for entry at a later date when necessary, special provision for backward children and also for defective children. This is to be rather like the scheme which the Mover of the Resolution would have and which appears to be carried out by the Board of Education without his knowledge or consent.
My objection to this Resolution is rather more deep-rooted than that. It would appear that the Labour Benches give a publicity and credence which is wholly unwarrantable to the idea that theirs is the only party that has the welfare of our educational system at heart. Further, while I cannot bring myself to agree with that, I should like to see a more general, and perhaps a more meticulous scale laid down for the examinations of children for secondary schools. At present the tests are somewhat haphazard. In one place the teachers will set their own papers and correct them. In another the directors will set the papers and the teachers will correct them. The Burnley test is more difficult than the Blackburn, both tests are less easy than at Durham, and all tests are less difficult than those in London. The consequence is that we have a great diversity of children who get into the secondary schools. I should like to read one or two of the tests that were made by a director of education in the
North. He said in an area which he would call D, at the first examination 932 pupils sat. In an easy test 134 did not get a single sum right, 45 per cent. had less than a quarter a the marks and 67½ per cent. had less than 40 per cent. of marks. In the second examination, of 458 candidates only 3.2 per cent. got half marks or more, and a quarter of the candidates had less than 10 per cent. of the possible marks. At an 11 year old examination, with 14,234 children eligible, 50 per cent. were kept back by the teachers as unfit, 7,047 were marked by their own school teachers, 25 per cent. obtained half marks, and only 1,763 reached a satisfactory standard. In 28 departments, with 861 children eligible for examination, not a single child reached a satisfactory standard. Therefore it seems to me that unless we have some uniformity of standard to see what children shall get into the second grade we are liable to get a number of children getting secondary school places who should not be there. Our objection is not to the provision of secondary school education, it is not to the provision of sufficient places, but it is to the wholesale increase of secondary school places to be filled, perhaps, in such a manner as I have indicated. Therefore I beg, with the utmost humility, to move my Amendment.

Mr. RADFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I confess to the House at the outset that I am not an expert on educational matters, nor am I well-informed thereon. After the sincere and eloquent speeches of the Mover and Seconder and the Mover of the Amendment, I am sorry to have to come down from those dizzy heights of educational consideration to the mundane level of s. d. I do feel that it is a good thing that a man who is not an expert on a subject such as this should intervene in the Debate, because my experience in the House and elsewhere has been that where men are experts on any particular subjects, they are carried away with their own enthusiasm on that particular subject, their heart is in the thing they are discussing, and ways and means find no place in their calculations. Our country is a more heavily taxed country than any in the world, more
heavily taxed than we ever dreamt our country would be taxed, and yet we are here to-night considering schemes which, however desirable they may be, would add to the burden of expenditure on the National Exchequer and burdens on the rates of local authorities.
At the present time the expenditure which is being borne by the National Exchequer and the local rates amounts to £74,000,000 per annum, of which some 40 odd millions is provided out of the National Exchequer. The corresponding figure in the year ending March, 1901, was £17,000,000, and 10 years later, in the year ending March, 1911, it was £29,000,000. So that we have had progressive figures of £17,000,000, £29,000,000 and £74,000,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite applaud those figures, and they would like to double them. While they are doubling them, or keeping them at their present figure in order to benefit the children and give them a better education, possibly one which we on these benches would welcome also, they will put an additional load on British industry which will result in unemployment being worse than it is. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr Lansbury) affords an additional proof of my remarks about experts. Experts on the Navy want certain things for the Navy; experts on education want unlimited expenditure on education; other experts unlimited expenditure on widows' pensions and old age pensions—things which all the Members of the House would welcome if the country could afford it, but there must be moderation, and it is time our minds were brought down to cold facts. In 1901 the cost of education amounted approximately to 10s. per head of the population. The present figure is just under £2, and I do say that, whether or not we can afford to continue spending the £74,000,000 which we are at present spending, we are not justified in rushing to additional schemes which will add to the figure of £74,000,000.
A further point is this, that the cost of secondary education, which is what the Mover and Seconder of the Motion wish to develop particularly, is infinitely higher than the cost of elementary education. The cost of elementary education is only about £11 per annum per child,
whereas the cost per child for secondary education is £28. Therefore, it behoves the House to scrutinise any additional development of secondary education even more closely than they do elementary education. The cost of elementary education has grown from between £4 and £5 to £14. Under the London County Council the cost of elementary is £15 per annum per child, and secondary education £39. The Seconder of the Motion referred to certain tests that the children were subjected to, and read out some of the questions put to them. What he did not tell us was that 50 per cent. was the number of marks required to pass examinations. In some towns the proportion is 50 per cent. I can give the House a few figures relative to just one town which show that the number of children admitted to secondary schools was far in excess of those who obtained the minimum number of marks that were supposed to qualify for such entry. Of 943 who sat for an examination, 284 reached the satisfactory standard, but 551 were awarded places in secondary schools, or nearly twice as many as those who qualified for the tests. It is a fact. that a certain number of children in Lancashire, whom we should call rather "gormless" children, reached the secondary school where possibly they would not be able to get that benefit which the schools intended. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion referred to children acquiring self-reliance as one of the benefits they would get during the period of secondary education. I can think of no better way of a child acquiring self-reliance than by a child going out to earn its living and helping its mother and father. [Interruption.] The Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) has possibly never experienced what it is to earn her living, but I can well remember that I left school at 15.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I left at nine.

Mr. RADFORD: I well remember how very proud I was when I brought home my first month's salary, which was 16s. 8d. for one month's work—£10 a year. I quite agree also that plenty of sons of the wealthier classes go to Eton, Harrow and other schools who are not fitted to benefit. They do not go at the expense of the State or local authorities, and we have got to consider that a well-to-do family might as well spend their money
in that way as in any other way. I do not think we are justified in criticising that. I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

Mr. FISHER: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson), who has done so much excellent work for education in the county of Durham, should have selected this subject for discussion. Not only is it my opinion that the President of the Board of Education will welcome, or should welcome, the kind of criticism which the hon. Gentleman has addressed to him, but because it is well that the President of the Board of Education should realise that there are in different parts of the House hon. Members who take a keen interest in the advance of our system of public education, and desirable that from time to time that interest should be manifested; but also, I think, the hon. Member has been happily inspired in selecting the subject of secondary education, because by the confession of all who have given any serious attention to the study of our education at this moment, far the gravest of the unsolved problems which concern the legislator and the administrator is the problem of adolescent education.
There is no one who gives any close attention to the subject of education who is not appalled by the wastage which goes on through the neglect and loss of education which takes place between the ages of 14 and 18. It is, in my submission, the primary task of the Legislator and the administrator to cope with that situation. The hon. Member who seconded the Resolution in such eloquent terms, rather called me to order, if I may say so, for having ventured to express an opinion unfavourable to the general intelligence of the human race. I do not hold a very serious brief for American intelligence tests; I never have done, hut, on the other hand, I have had too much experience of the lugubrious occupation of examining youth, to have failed to notice that it is one thing to ask a question and another thing to get an answer. Consequently, when the hon. Member read out a number of very difficult and perplexing questions which were administered to the children of our elementary schools, and invited the House to conclude that those children were all infant geniuses, I venture humbly to
differ. Everybody is agreed that there are far too few secondary school places in this country. Everybody is agreed except, I think, the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment.

Mr. RADFORD: I am also agreed, but the only thing is that the money is lacking.

Mr. FISHER: Then we are all agreed. It may, of course, be true that you may have a school here or there which admits children on an unsufficient standard. I do not deny that, but in the main we agree that there are very large numbers of children all over this country who are desirous of secondary education, who are lit to profit by secondary education, and whose parents are willing to send them to secondary schools, and yet they are debarred from secondary education by the lack of secondary school places. Consequently, if we are serious in our endeavours to advance the cause of public education in this country, we must put pressure upon the President of the Board of Education and request him, very respectfully, to transmit that pressure to the local education authorities, for the building of more secondary schools and for the provision of a greater number of secondary school places.
I expressed the opinion when I was in office, and I repeat it now, that we ought to work up to 600,000 secondary school places. We ought not to be content with less than that number. The Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education told us not very long ago that he had had a scheme submitted to him for, I think he said, 240 additional secondary schools. It will, no doubt, take a considerable time before those 240 schools are built; but even when they are built they will only go about half the way towards the goal which I personally have in view. The hon. Member who seconded the Resolution was very anxious for a very wide and general extension of secondary schools, and he propounded a sound educational doctrine in connection with them. I was not, however, quite certain whether he desired to make attendance at these secondary schools compulsory, or whether he desired that the parents should be free to send or not to send their children to these secondary schools.

Mr. COVE: Compulsory.

Mr. FISHER: Then that clears the issue a great deal. The hon. Member who moved and the hon. Member who seconded the Resolution desire to make a full-time secondary school education compulsory up to 16 upon the children or young people in this country. There, I venture to think, they will not have the support of the majority of the parents of these children. That would be their great difficulty. No Government could come forward with such a proposal as that. It may be right educationally, but I contend that it will be quite impossible for the Noble Lord to come forward this year or next year, or in any future year, and propose to compel working-class parents to forego the earnings of their children and to keep them full-time at secondary schools up to the age of 16. It was because I was so profoundly convinced of that fact that in the Bill of 1918, which I succeeded in carrying through Parliament, I made provision for part-time education.
I believe there are a large number of parents in this country who cannot forego the earnings of their children after the age of 14, but who would appreciate a continuation school which would be compatible with industrial earnings, and for that reason our present education law is so framed as to provide for part-time secondary education or full-time secondary education up to the age of 16. When the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring said that we had only to put into execution the Act of 1918, I thoroughly agree with him. That Act would, if put into execution, solve our difficulty. It offers an alternative between part-time education and full-time education: an alternative of which parents, whether they are comparatively well-to-do or quite poor, would be able to avail themselves.
There is one other point in connection with the hon. Gentleman's speech to which I would like to refer. He desires a system of compulsory education for all young people between 14 and 16 free of fees. I would invite him to reconsider that position. I agree that when you go to a great mining area like Durham, with a large poor industrial population, there are many children who can profit by secondary education, but whose parents will not be able to pay fees, or, at any
rate, substantial fees, and there, at any rate, there is a case for a liberal provision of free places.

Mr. RICHARDSON: In Durham they cannot afford to pay the fees. People who cannot afford to pay £5 lose £22. I am entirely in favour of the abolition of all fees. It does not amount to so very much in the bulk.

Mr. FISHER: On that, I have to say that if all fees were abolished to-morrow some £3,000,000 of very useful educational revenue would be lost, and not a single additional school place would be created. If you want to furnish additional school places, your right course is to build more secondary schools, and I fail to see why parents who can afford to pay, and who are paying, fees—some of them quite well-to-do parents—should be relieved of that obligation. I was reading the other day a very remarkable Report written by Mr. James Bryce, a great educational authority, on education in Lancashire in the year 1868. It forms a part of Vol. 9 of the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission. Mr. James Bryce examined a very large number of the small grammar schools and secondary schools in Lancashire. Some of them charged fees and others were entirely free, and he came to the very deliberate conclusion that the schools which charged fees were uniformly more efficient than the schools which were entirely free.

Mr. J. JONES: In 1868.

Mr. FISHER: The reason he came to that conclusion was, he said, that the parents who paid fees, however small those fees might be, for education in a secondary school, took some interest in the school. They were very much annoyed if they did not think that the teaching was up to the mark, and they put pressure upon the teachers, so that you got an intelligent pressure exercised by the parents upon the school, whereas when no fee was charged parents became careless, regarding the education as a form of charity. Children of the better class of parents did not go to these schools. The schools were socially depreciated, and consequently he came to the considered opinion that wherever you could charge fees it was desirable, in the interests of education, that you should do so.
It is true, as the hon. Member for
Silvertown (Mr. T. Jones) reminds me, that that was in 1868, and conditions may have changed since then. I am only asking hon. Members to consider the point. It is the opinion of a great educationist and cannot be brushed aside. It has some value. My view is that the right way to obtain a greater number of free places in our secondary schools is to build more secondary schools and to provide in every one of those secondary schools a liberal supply of free places, granting more free places in poor industrial districts than you would in rich districts like Bournemouth, where most parents; can afford to pay fees. Why we should relieve people in Bournemouth of the contributions which they make to the national system of education, I cannot conceive.
I hope that my Noble Friend will proceed to attack, as I am sure he intends to do, the problem of adolescent education, not on one line only but on several parallel lines. He has already indicated to us that he proposes to bring in a Bill for making attendance at unemployment centres compulsory. I shall support him when he brings in that Bill; I think that it will be a change for the better but, meantime, do not let us close our eyes to the fact that the unemployment centre is not an ideal centre of education. It is only a waiting-room for the unemployed boy or girl before he or she obtains a job. The main problem is to find employment for the child and there are no circumstances which are more desperate for the teacher than those which prevail in these centres. Therefore, though it may be a useful thing to do it is a very small thing to do, and will take us a very short way on the road along which we wish to travel.
Besides that, there are the development of secondary schools and part-time education and the extension of elementary school education, and it is interesting to note that so far from it being the case that part-time education and full-time education are hostile one to the other, each helps the other. For instance when the London day continuation schools were in operation, there were 6,000 additional children attending the elementary schools after the age of 14, and those children withdrew from the elementary schools as soon as this part-time system came to an end. Consequently, if the local educa-
tion authorities are encourged to develop part-time education, as well as secondary school education, one of the consequences will be that a number of children who would otherwise leave the elementary school at 14 will stay on. Every form of continued education leads to another form of continued education. There is no need for the protagonists of one form to contest the claim of the protagonists of another.
The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment laid great stress on the point of economy. Large economies have been practised in the field of public education during the last three years. The Noble Lord is going to realise an economy of £1,250,000 on the Educational Estimates of this year, and I think that the time has now come when he may well put a little pressure on the local education authorities to administer the education at law of the country. We, on these benches, are very anxious that that pressure should be applied, but we realise fully that we are only a minority in this House, and that if the Noble Lord is to receive the support, which I am sure he desires to obtain, for the furtherance of public education in this country, he must look for a very large measure of that support to the hon. Members who sit behind him. I trust that the younger members of his party whose minds are not obsessed by the idea of unwise economy, and who realise that it is to the advantage of our country, in the struggle for existence, that we should be at least as well educated as the Americans or the Scandinavians—I trust that a: number of hon. Members on the benches opposite will urge the Noble Lora to go forward. If he does, I am sure that hon. Members on the Labour and Liberal Benches will give him unstinted support.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): one of the objects of the right hon. Gentleman's lugubrious task as examiner, I rise with some trepidation to take part in the Debate, and I rise thus early because I think that as an Amendment has been moved from the Conservative Benches to the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson), I ought, perhaps, to offer the House such advice as I can as to how it should act. Both the Resolution and the Amendment, the latter moved in
a maiden speech which I think the House very fully appreciated and would have wished to be longer than it was, are expressions, I think I may say, of the aims of policy; they do not seek to formulate programmes for the immediate future My right hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) in his Act of 1918, required local authorities to formulate schemes of educational development. Those schemes were to be schemes—many were actually submitted—extending over a period of a generation or more. They were to be expressions of the general aims of the area in education. The Resolution and the Amendment which we are discussing are of that character. They are pious Resolutions, not pious in the sense of being hypocritical, but in the sense of being very far-sighted and looking very far ahead.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I hope not.

10.0 P.M.

Lord E. PERCY: It is very important from time to time that this House and those who are interested in education should recollect what their ideals and aims are, and should lay them down. But there is one danger in that, and a very real danger. The main danger of all democratic forms of government is that the man in the street tends to get an idea that politicians do not really mean what they say, or, at any rate, that they use words in a specialised and Pickwickian sense, not quite the same sense as is borne by those words when they are ordinarily used by the man in the street. That is a danger in resolutions of this kind. I am left in considerable confusion as to what the Resolution really means. The Mover told us very emphatically that for his part he was content with the Act of 1918; he desired no new legislation. But later, in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for the English Universities, he said that he wanted attendance at secondary schools up to the age of 16 years to be compulsory. That cannot be done under the Act of 1918. I know it is not in the Resolution. I merely give that as an instance of the kind of confusion which may result.
I propose to deal with the Resolution as it stands on the Paper. Even in the Resolution there is a certain danger that words are used which will be taken outside to mean a great deal more in
terms of our immediate policy than the Resolution really intends. To begin with, may I, without any feeling of hostility, for one moment analyse the Resolution. It begins by quoting the report of the Departmental Committee on Scholarships and Free Places, and it misquotes that Report. The Resolution says that the Departmental Committee declared that 75 per cent. of the children leaving elementary schools are intellectually qualified to profit by full-time education up to the age of 16 years. I may remind the hon. Member that the Committee did not declare that. What it said was that without accepting this suggestion as more than a convenient hypothesis—which is hardly the same thing as declaring it.

Mr. RICHARDSON: A very fine point.

Lord E. PERCY: I will return to that later, because it is rather significant. In the next place the Resolution, having laid down that 75 per cent. of the children are intellectually qualified to profit by full-time education up to the age of 16 years, proceeds by a rather illogical jump to say that all children must be given an opportunity of such education up to the age of 16 years. Even if the Committee had said 75 per cent., that is not 100 per cent.

Mr. RICHARDSON: May I remind the Noble Lord that of the 25 per cent. many are in other kinds of schools—the mentally defective, physically defective, blind, and all that sort of thing?

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid that the 25 per cent will not be accounted for to anything but an infinitesimal extent in that way. I must not bore the House with statistics. The hon. Member asks that schemes shall be formulated by every local authority for providing for all children up to the age of 16 years within a reasonable period. I notice that neither the hon. Member nor the right hon. Member for the English Universities seems to have heard of a little circular of five pages which I issued on 31st March. I hoped that it might have come to the knowledge of hon. Members who are interested in education. In that circular I call upon all local authorities to formulate programmes, but—I ask the House to mark this—programmes of actual work for the next three years to five years, not general schemes and aspirations. I
do not know what the hon. Member calls a reasonable period. He mentioned 10 years in his speech, but he knows perfectly well that industrial conditions, the wishes of the parents, and the needs of the children vary immensely from area to area. You cannot ask local authorities to produce stereotyped schemes for the same kind of education for every area. He knows, further, that local education authorities generally, no matter what help may be given them by the Board of Education and no matter how much money they spend out of the rates, are and must be utterly unable to carry out this kind of programme in anything like ten years or twenty years. I have spoken before of the 240 secondary schools now before me in one form or another. In some quarters it has been suggested that the difficulty of getting on with these schools is in some obscure way connected with the reduction of the Education Estimates this year. I can assure the House that is not so. Not one single project for a new secondary school or an extension of a secondary school is being held up in any way on financial grounds by my Department. On a survey of the present rate of progress, the present building capacity and so forth, I cannot hold out to the House any more brilliant prospects than the provision of, say, an additional 15,000 to 20,000 secondary school places per annum. That may be accelerated, but I am talking now of the rate at which these proposals are being brought forward and at which they can, in practice, be carried out.
Therefore, by all means let us lay down this kind of policy as our ultimate end, but do not let us delude the people of the country into believing that, physically, a programme of this kind can possibly be carried out in the immediate future. I agree that there is nothing, or very little, between the Resolution and the Amendment as statements of general policy of an ultimate kind, and I think it most important on a question of education that we should avoid anything in the nature of a sham battle about words I hope we shall avoid that to-night. Before coming to deal with actual practical policy, I am most anxious that the House should realise one thing. The words "secondary education" have been much used in this Debate, and used in a way which would
indicate that any form of further education, any form of advanced instruction beginning at the age of 11 and extending beyond the age of 14, is to be called secondary education. There is a certain shyness on the part of hon. Members opposite to use the words "central schools." That term seems to them to be derogatory and all such schools apparently must be called secondary schools. I do not care what you call them. There are many names in existence. You may call them secondary schools, middle schools, senior schools, or "post-primary" schools—to quote the Resolution—but do not delude the people of this country into thinking that any school with fairly large class-rooms and fairly small classes, taking children of 11 and keeping them until the age of 14 or a little over, is a place of higher education. I would further refer to the Departmental Committee of Free Places. They adopted as a convenient hypothesis for further education up to the age of 16 the figure of 75 per cent. They did not adopt any figure of the kind in the case of higher education, and they laid down a definition of what secondary school education should be:
The most definite suggestion put to us"—
which they adopted—
is that the qualifying standard for entering a secondary school should be understood to mean promise of passing a first examination al the normal age between 16 and 17.
That is the standard which they suggest as the standard for the secondary schools, and they say that the estimates they have had of the proportion of children in elementary schools of 11 years of age who could be reasonably regarded as likely to reach the standard of a first examination in a secondary school at the normal age of 16 or 17, varies from about one-third to one-half, as against the three-fourths which they mention as the figure for further education. That in itself draws the clearest line between secondary education in the sense of higher education, and further education or advanced instruction which falls short of that standard. There is nothing more important at present than that we should maintain the high standard of what has been called secondary education in this country, the secondary education which is not merely an
extension of elementary education for people who are going to enter industry but which is much more than that. It is the selecting ground for the Universities; it is the intermediate stage between the elementary school and the University. To lower that standard and to induce people to believe that when you provide advanced instruction by central or senior schools, you are necessarily providing higher education in the sense in which we have understood it in the secondary schools, would be to mislead absolutely the parents of this country. I hope when the hon. Members opposite insist on the extension of secondary education and fight shy of the term "central school" they will remember that the attempt to bring all post-elementary education, all post-primary education on to one dead high-school level, as it is I am afraid in the United States, will do far more to prevent any real higher education in this country than anything else. I throw that out as a word of warning.
What we are all agreed upon—and that is why I am so anxious not to quarrel about words—is that the education of our children from the age of 11 onward is, broadly speaking, to-day unsatisfactory. You have got to provide for advanced instruction for all children, so far as possible, from the age of 11 on, and in doing so, in reorganising your schools, in providing secondary or central schools, or whatever name you like to call them, you have got to provide for the increasing number of children who will stay on voluntarily to the age of 15 or more if you provide the education which makes it worth their while. That is the programme on which we are all agreed, that is the programme which we are asking local authorities to work, and that is the programme which local authorities are working out all over the country at the present moment.
As regards secondary education, the right hon. Member for Newcastle Central (Mr. Trevelyan) laid down last year what was his immediate programme. I have said that I entirely agree with that programme as an immediate programme, working up to the 40 per cent. of free places and to the standard of 20 secondary school places per 1,000 of the population. We do not, I think, need any new immediate programme of
secondary education beyond that. May I say that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring seems to be unaware that the request which I received from the Durham County Council for free secondary education in Durham was sent to me after I had withdrawn the super-grant in respect of free places, and he does not seem to be aware that I have already told the county council that I am prepared to agree to their programme, though I have asked for their views on one or two subsidiary points.

Mr. RICHARDSON: The Resolution was certainly passed before you withdrew the grant.

Lord E. PERCY: I received it after I had withdrawn it, so it made no difference to the determination of the Durham County Council. I hope that the programme which I have called for from local education authorities will produce a real advance along the lines of making much better provision for advanced instruction, and I should like to re-assure the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford) on one point, which is, that in many areas, at any rate, reorganisation of that kind and provision for advanced instruction does not involve any large extra expenditure. On the contrary, it very often means many contributive economies, owing to better organisation of elementary instruction. I hope my Circular will result in programmes of that kind. I think we are really all agreed as to the general aims laid down, both in the Resolution and in the Amendment which has been moved to it. So long as we are honest with the country, and realise that progress along those lines must necessarily be gradual, and—this is the real fact—that a great extension of educational facilities in this country will only come when our trade, and the revenue which comes from our trade, begins rapidly to expand instead of remaining stationary, as it is at the present moment, and that meanwhile any advance must be gradual, and, as I say, if we ace honest with our constituents in telling them, then, as a general statement of ultimate aims, there is very little between the Resolution and the Amendment, and there is nothing, broadly speaking, to which I would object. I would suggest that my hon. and gallant
Friend might withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Motion of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring to go through.

Mr. TREVELYAN: After what we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman, and the advice he has given to the House, there is very little that I wish to say. I am very glad he has advised his hon. Friends to withdraw their Amendment, and I should be very much disappointed if the Amendment were insisted upon. Last year I made an effort, which was. to a great extent, successful, to secure that our educational progress should be agreed upon by all parties. I do not think the hon. Member fully realised that, because, during his speech, he said that we on this side were asserting that we were the only party which had the welfare of education at heart. That, really, is not our attitude, and my objection to his Amendment, among other things, is that it calls on us, in particular, to approve the views of the Conservative Premier. They are not the views of the Conservative Premier we are discussing to-night. They are the views of the educationists of both parties, and I encouraged my hon. Friend the Member for Houghtonle-Spring (Mr. Richardson) to frame this Motion deliberately for the purpose of trying to get agreement by both sides on this occasion. There is nothing in his Resolution which conflicts either with the views of the Labour party or, indeed, I think, conflicts with the views of the Premier. The statement of the Unionist aims was that
The party would maintain close co-ordination between elementary, secondary, technical and higher education, so that secondary and university courses should be brought within the reach of every child in the elementary schools who might be desirous and capable of taking advantage of it.
That, of course, does not cover the whole of the Resolution, but it, at any rate, goes most of the way of the Resolution which has been proposed by my hon. Friend. But there are, besides, other things in the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring which are not in the Amendment, and I think it would be well for the House, on that ground, to stick to the Resolution. In the first place, there is an allusion to schemes. I do not think there is anything that my successor has done of which we approve more fully
than we do his trying to get the local authorities to think ahead sufficiently to have a programme for the next few years.
The Mover of the Amendment, the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton), who quoted a proposition from Plymouth, seemed to think it was a proposal of the Board of Education. It is the proposal of Plymouth, possibly, I think, inspired by the Board of Education. The original movement comes from Plymouth itself. What happened originally was—if I am right in saying so—that Plymouth sent in a request to be allowed to give free secondary education. Upon this, the Board of Education asked them to prepare a general scheme improving their whole system of education. They produced what the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury read out to the House. I am sure that the President of the Board of Education must be delighted at the way in which Plymouth is responding to the request, as I am delighted at the way in which Plymouth is going ahead with free secondary education. I would only ask the President, when he is dealing with the local authorities, to bear in mind that the activity and progress which he may get out of them may depend very much upon the kind of way he encourages them.
Every now and then—I noticed it, for instance, in his speech to-night—he is so very anxious to tell us not to be too idealistic and so very anxious to tell us that we cannot get what we want in the next 20 years. How can he or I tell that? It does not depend upon the humour that we see in the local authorities at present. If he keeps on encouraging them, telling them that these things can be done, he may, in five or six years, get an entirely different mentality in the country in regard to education. If the country feels itself, as it has done in past times, in great danger from possible foreign invasion, there is absolutely no requirements in the nature of military or naval preparation which the country would not grant to the Government. In a few years Parliament, which would only grant so many millions for defence, will grant half as many millions again, because there has been a change of temperament in the country. There may be at any moment a change of temperament
in the country with regard to education. Very remarkable changes are going on now. Plymouth is not necessarily the first place from which to expect a development in regard to education. It is proposing to embark on a great advance in the reorganisation of education for which educationists are asking generally. It is, however, a very remarkable development in Plymouth. Why should we despair that, what Plymouth does, all the great authorities in the Kingdom will not do in a few years Therefore, I do say that there is some value in Resolutions like the one put forward from these benches, even if we are all conscious that possibly we are putting demands a little higher than we may immediately expect to see fulfilled? There is reason in looking ahead. I hope, therefore, this sort of movement will be encouraged.
I only want to say one other word about what was said by the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford) in seconding the Amendment. In regard to advanced education, he seems still to be thinking only in terms of the clever children, and of their getting the benefit. I wish we could open out into a new idea of what advanced and secondary education ought to be, not thinking only of giving clever children their chance. When it is a question of the children of the well-to-do, no man thinks of stopping his child's education at 14 because the child happens to be the stupid member of the family. He does not take his boy away from Winchester, or Harrow or Eton—at any rate, the boy has to be doing very badly indeed if he takes him away. Parents are inclined rather to keep their boys and girls at school if they are stupid, and say they must have something put in their heads.
At the age of 14 many children are only just beginning to develop. I am a Harrow man, and there is one very remarkable instance of a Harrow man who did not begin to develop until 14—the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the Prime Minister knows, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bottom of Harrow. That meant that at 13 or 14 he knew very little indeed; if he had been a working man's son he would not have had a chance of going to a secondary school at all. It is not realised how the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have exercised his mind and have utilised his opportunities from 13 and 14 onwards. He would not have
had a chance if he had been a working man's child. You cannot have a test of ability at that age. In half mankind ability comes after 13 and 14, and we ought to get out of our minds altogether the idea that secondary and advanced education ought to be for the specially clever child, it ought to be the right of all average intelligent children.
I want to conclude by saying one or two words about the last phrases of the Motion moved by my hon. Friend. It refers to the need for mointenance allowances for children who may be debarred by the poverty of their parents. I think some Members of the House do not fully realise the extent to which the poor are entirely barred, even where there is a great deal of secondary education in our great towns. You have places where there is a great deal of secondary education, where, often, there are a great many free places, and in those places it is fair to say of the comparatively well-to-do, who can keep their children at school, and take advantage of the free places, that not only all the clever children can go, but a great many of the quite moderately intelligent children also. But in a school in the poorer districts of the same town, go into a department where there are 500 children and ask, "How many children do you ever send to a secondary school?" They will tell you "None" or "One." In those schools there are children of obvious cleverness, of obvious mathematical ability, capable of receiving any amount of scientific instruction, children of literary ability, and they cannot go on to the secondary schools. Free places are not enough for them because their parents are too poor. If these children are to have any real chance at all our local authorities must be encouraged in every possible way to provide maintenance allowances, to allow a larger number of children to get the chance which is still out of their reach. This point is covered by the Resolution moved by my hon. Friend. For these reasons I hope that the House will agree to the proposal made by the Minister of Education that the Amendment should be withdrawn. We cannot get entire agreement for the reasons I have given on the Amendment, but I think we can get entire agreement upon the general principles of the Resolution which has been proposed.

Mr. J. JONES: As one of the most ignorant Members of the House, I wish to speak on a subject of which I know very little, that is, education. It seems to me that everybody is in favour of education providing that it does not cost too much. On these benches we have always stood for the right of every child in the country, if it has the intelligence and capacity, to go right from the elementary school to the university. Some people go to the university by accident and some get there by design. I come from a district where we have done our best to provide the best possible education for the poorest of the poor at the expense of the rates. No doubt the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education will tell us that he is sympathetic towards the Resolution of my hon. Friend, but if he asks local authorities to provide further schemes for extended education, I would like to ask how far is he prepared to meet us. We have any amount of schemes. I am pleased to hear that Plymouth is coming along after West Ham in this respect after alt these years of waiting. We have provided special schools and recreation grounds for the children, and football pitches, but in these matters I may say that we have had very little assistance from educational experts. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to ask us to prepare education schemes. As a matter of fact, we are absolutely full of them and bubbling over with them.

Mr. C. DUNCAN: But they go off "pop."

Mr. J. JONES: We keep "popping" them up, but they keep "popping" us down again. We have 70,000 children on our registers in West Ham, mostly the sons and daughters of men who have a hard struggle to get a living, and a large proportion of them are casual labourers. Nevertheless, we have sent some of them to Cambridge and Oxford by means of scholarships, but we cannot afford to give all the children the chance we should like to give them. Sympathy may be worth a lot in education, but I should like to ask what is it worth in the matter of pounds, shillings and pence. If we have clever boys, the sons of dockers, we claim that they ought to have the same chance as the sons of dukes. Some day we may have a docker sitting on the Front Government Bench in succession to
the son of a duke, as the Minister of Education is. The sons of dockers now get a poor chance, because the districts whence they come are not able to afford the financial responsibility that will devolve upon them.
Therefore, we have always claimed that education should be a national charge. It is a national responsibility, which ought not to be placed on the authorities that are locally responsible for huge areas with poor populations. That is where we stand. We know very well that in some parts of the country they can afford to give a large number of scholarships. It would not cost very much to give every child capable of benefiting by a good education the opportunity of enjoying it. In the East End of London there are any number of clever boys who now have to go into the factories, when they can get the chance, or to walk the streets delivering newspapers early in the morning, or to go out delivering milk when they ought to be getting a real education that would prevent their having to go into these occupations, which lead to their becoming the unemployables about whom so much is said when the dole is being discussed.
We, therefore, want, higher education, but we want to know how far you are going. You do not argue about money when you want bases at Singapore, or a new Air Force. The interests of the nation demand that we shall have certain forces for our protection. Surely, ignorance is the biggest enemy we have ever had. If we can use all the machinery of the nation to see that we have proper protection against enemies, surely we ought to be prepared to spend the necessary money to enable the responsibility to be faced by those districts that are least able to hear it. That is my claim against the present position. The local authorities have to foot the bill, and those authorities which are most badly placed have to bear the greatest responsibility. Where there is the biggest number of poor children the cost is the greatest. It is not playing the game, so far as we are concerned, from an educational point of view.
Our schools will bear comparison with any in this country from the public point of view. We have done our best. We have put the rates up, and we are called
squandermaniacs for doing it. Other parts of London have starved education, and they are economists. All that we ask is that our children shall have equality of opportunity. Is the Noble Lord prepared to meet us fairly and squarely? After we have proposed our schemes, is he prepared to meet us in the matter of finding the money to finance them? We may have all the sympathy in the world, but what is it worth when we get it? We know you all want to see children educated if it does not cost much, but you cannot have good things unless you pay for them. The Noble Lord himself cannot buy a decent suit of clothes unless he pays the price, and you cannot educate a child without paying for it.
The only question is, who is going to pay? The chap who has got it does not want to pay, and the fellow who has not got it cannot afford it. Therefore, the child has to go without. We want the children to have this, because the children are the greatest asset of the nation. Therefore, we stand for the Resolution, so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. Some of my children have had a better education than I have, and I am pleased to be able to say that they have had better opportunities than I ever had. I want to see every child have better opportunities than I have had. What we can do as individuals the nation can do. The nation is rich enough to fight a war through and defeat its enemies abroad, and it ought to be prepared to find the necessary means, by common effort, to see that our children get the chance of developing the best that is in them.

Mr. WILLIAM GREENWOOD: It appeared to me, until the intervention of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), that the whole of this Debate was to be taken up by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are considered to be educationists. I do not think that that is altogether a wise thing in the case of such an important subject. I think there is fairly general agreement on all sides that we do wish to give every opportunity, to children who can benefit from higher education, to get it. But I think there is a great difference of opinion as to the methods that should be adopted, and I am afraid educationalists, as such, sometimes neglect a very practical point as to how the bill is to be footed. I think there is a real connection be-
tween industry and education, and although many of these educationists sometimes boast that they are very proud of the fact that they know nothing about industry and do not wish to, I should be very sorry indeed if I had to make the same boast and say I knew nothing about education. I know a little about it, but unfortunately, not like a good many Members of the House, I was not able to stay at school a very long time, not so long as the Seconder of the Amendment, who I gather left school at 15 to earn a salary, as he called it—we used to call it a wage—of 4s. a week. I left school at 10 years of age to work for 1s. 9d. in one week and 2s. 3d in the next, varying according to the amount of half-time that was put in at the mill.
I oppose very much the remarks of the ex-Minister of Education that there was not an opportunity for the sons of working men to improve their education. The marvellous results that are attained in every industrial town in the country by the sons of poor parents proves that that statement is entirely untrue. We have cases in Oldham in particular which disprove it, where sons and daughters of working men have risen to the very highest eminence both in industry and in education. The right hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Fisher) also mentioned that when children went into industry their education ceased. I do not think he altogether meant that, because he went on to say he believed in continued education even after children had joined industry. That is a point that I think we ought to stress very much. If, as the Minister said, he is hoping to see a better mentality in the country towards higher education he would perhaps get that all the sooner if people could realise that they were getting real value for the money that is being spent on education. The level of education, although there is nearly three times as much being spent on it as there was 20 years ago, is not so good as it was then, and I am not so sure that the words quoted by the right hon. Gentleman behind me as spoken by Mr. Bryce with regard to education that is entirely free not being appreciated so much as education which costs the parents something have not a great deal of truth in them. There is a danger, if you get things too cheap, of not realising their value, and it applies to education as it does to anything else.
The Seconder of the Resolution talked about blind-alley occupations, and mentioned as low down on the list life in a factory. It is a great mistake that these educationists make who, though they know a great deal about education, know very little about industry, that they do industry a great dis-service by speaking about blind-alley occupations in what is, after all, the second greatest industry in the country, that of cotton spinning and weaving. Education authorities have said that people going to the ordinary occupation of weaving were going into a blind-alley occupation. It is nothing of the sort. It is the regular standard form of labour and it is far better than many of those so-called aristocratic jobs of labour you might find round about a city such as London. If we do not mind, there is a danger of our not trying to teach the dignity of labour. The tendency is to teach them that they ought to get as far away from industry as possible. If we do not mind, we are going to breed a nation, not of workers, but we are going to make a nation absolutely of shirkers and a nation of snobs. That is the danger. I know one great educationist said he would rather have one "rag" than 10 lectures. What sort of mentality is that? I would rather be an industrialist than a man of that sort.

Mr. DUFF COOPER: Referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) in seconding the Resolution, which puzzled me very considerably and which I am still unable to explain, he quoted an authority on psychology. The moment he mentioned a psychological expert I grew suspicious, because more nonsense is written and spoken on psychology than on any other subject at the present time. This expert examined 30,000 children, and found that two-thirds of them were above the normal. One wonders how he established his basis of normality. Presumably he must have examined 3,000,000 children before he examined the 30,000.
On general lines this Debate has showed an extraordinary amount of agreement between all parties. Personally I agree with the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones) that we cannot spend too much money on education, and I differ, if I understood him correctly, from the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. W.
Greenwood) when he said there was any antagonism between education and industry. I believe money spent on education is as well invested as it can possibly be. In so far as there is any divergence of opinion in the Debate this evening I think it is on these lines: Some hon. Members are in favour of granting a fairly high standard of education and making it compulsory on all the children of this country, while others would prefer that those children who have real ability should have a complete education, the fullest and best that could be given. I am inclined to hold a rather bold opinion that the world may be divided into people worth educating and people who are not. I am fully alive to the fact that the number of people not worth educating is just as large among the children of the rich as among the children of the poor. It seems an injustice to the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) that the rich children should have that education from which I do not think they gain benefit and that the poor children should not. I cannot quite agree with him. It is a well-known fact that the children of the rich frequently over-eat themselves, but that would be no argument for compelling the children of the poor to have compulsory bilious fits. Many of my friends who have had every advantage of education that money could afford, have shaken off that education like water off a duck's back. I believe there is a certain mentality in common among the rich and the poor which is education-proof, and so long as we have got to cut our coats according to our cloth, I think we shall do better in saving the money spent on these individuals, and giving it, insofar as we can, to those on whom it would be better invested. The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle said that nobody ever thought of withdrawing their children from school because they showed no capability. I know of a case of one of the greatest intellectual figures of the Victorian age who decided that his son at the age of 12 was not worth educating, and from that moment he refused to spend another penny on his education.
If we proceed upon these lines and snake sure that no single intelligence in this country which is really worth developing should be cramped by the
poverty of its parents, we shall obtain a better ideal than if we force a dead-level of education upon all and sundry. The French ideal, started in the French Revolution and carried on by Napoleon throughout his career, was that a career should be open to talent, that any private soldier might become a marshal, and that any French citizen might rise to the highest position in the State. That is an ideal which we should lay before us. We should make it our object that no intelligence shall remain cramped. It is a terrible and tragic thing that any brain should be denied its power of development.
We used to be told that the Chinese tied up the feet of their children because of a mistaken idea of beauty. Therefore, they allowed their children to grow up lame and maimed. I believe that not long ago it was the fashion among ladies in this country to cramp their waists in the same manner. It was a mistaken idea of beauty. I understand that the fashion has changed, and I hope it will never come back again. It is a far more terrible thing to cramp a man's brain than to cramp a child's feet or a child's waist. Let us make it our ideal that every child in this country shall have the power and the opportunity, if it has the capacity, of fulfilling all the capabilities that lie within it, rather than forcing a fairly high standard of education upon anybody, whether or not they desire or deserve it.

Mr. TAYLOR: I do not want to talk out the Resolution, but I merely rise to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will pay some attention to the necessity for discouraging the establishment of preparatory departments in secondary schools, which prevent children above 11 years of age from getting their opportunity.

Colonel BURTON: By leave of the House, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolved,
That, in view of the grave intellectual and social wastage caused by the fact that the great majority of children leaving elementary schools fail to obtain further education of any kind, a wastage aggravated by the present state of unemployment, and in view of the declaration of the Departmental Committee on scholarships and free places that 75 per cent, of the children
leaving elementary schools are intellectually qualified to profit by full-time education up to the age of 16, this House is of opinion that local education authorities should be called upon to prepare schemes by which within a reasonable period adequate provision may be made for secondary or some form of full-time post-primary education for all children up to the age of 16, for a progressive increase in the percentage of free places maintained in grant-aided secondary schools, and for the development of maintenance allowances on such a scale that no children may be debarred from higher education by the poverty of their parents.

Orders of the Day — MENTAL DEFICIENCY (AMEND MENT) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday, 30th April.—[Sir Leslie Scott.]

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920 on the application of the Gloucester Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 18th March and published, be approved."—[Sir Burton Chadwick.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'clock.